Re: What "URI" identifier for local TV resources?

On Fri, 26 Mar 1999 (CST) "Craig A. Finseth" wrote:

>    In my view this is exactly the sort of application for which the "tv:"
>    URI scheme is suited. If I understand you correctly, the application is
>    running on a web server at the cable head end (or closely associated
>    with the cable head end). It knows everything about the channels on the
>    receiver where the client is running. Thus, a reference to a channel
>    number is unambiguous.
> 
> YES, BUT ONLY IF THE BOX HAS NO OTHER INPUTS!
> 
> We were not willing to design to this restriction.
> 
> Hence, it is not acceptable for a cable system to use "tv:#" and
> expect it to be unambiguous.

Actually, I believe that multiple inputs is a strong argument
for the necessity of a scheme that allows more direct control.

Indeed, tuner and channel numbers have no place in content that
is intended to play universally, and so probably have no place
in the btv spec.  In public content, which may be broadcast,
saved, emailed, etc., a resource like a channel should be named
by its universal name.  Such content should not use locale- or
platform-centric identifiers such as a particular channel number
or tuner id.  The client implementation should be able to choose
the best way to deliver the the specified resource.  No argument
there.

For example, on a TV with two tuners, one for PIP and one full-
screen, the implementation, not the content, should select which
tuner to use based on the size of the image in the HTML page.
The mechanism (which tuner) should never be specified by generic
content.  And so should not be part of the btv URL scheme.

But there are user-interface applications (e.g. TV UI, EGP,
etc.) on the client or within a local system which do need to be
able to specify details such as tuner and channel number.  For
example, a UI app that goes through all the autoscanned channels
on the first tuner and then on the second one might need to
display tv:69?tuner=first followed by tv:2?tuner=second.

Just as a scheme for file: is essential to many browser usages
on a computer, this type of physical specification is required
by UI applications on many TV systems.  So, from necessity,
names will emerge.  The only question is whether the naming will
be standardized or chaotic.  I think a formalized naming scheme
would be very beneficial.

Structured namespaces for physical TV channels already exist
(e.g. NTSC, PAL, ATSC, etc.); so there is a sound basis on
which to build a structured, uniform naming scheme (certainly
more uniform that file:!).  Please let me know your thoughts.

regards,

-jim

Jim Helman
Network Computer, Inc.
jim@nc.com
650.631.4638

Received on Tuesday, 4 May 1999 00:37:11 UTC