Re: one more requirement

From: Craig A. Finseth (fin@finseth.com)
Date: Mon, Jan 11 1999


Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:10:44 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199901111710.LAA04666@isis.visi.com>
From: "Craig A. Finseth" <fin@finseth.com>
To: djz@corp.webtv.net
Cc: gomer@lgerca.com, www-tv@w3.org
Subject: Re: one more requirement

   At the risk of degenerating into a purely philosophical debate, I'm not sure
   I agree that the "tv:" URL doesn't describe an "image."  The television

I agree with Dan: I believe that the "tv:" concept describes an image
(stream).

The problem is that it doesn't describe a _unique_ image (stream).  In
other words, the image shown on my set may be different from the image
shown on your set.

On the other hand, it's so insane useful (i.e., it fits as the target
of "src=" tags just where you want it and in ways that a <tv> tag
would not) that I can see a justification that the UR* gods (whoever
they are, probably the authors of RFC 2396) might want to grant a
dispensation here.

In any event, I totally agree that we need some way to refer to the
current tv image.  Until we hear from the UR* gods, I'm not convinced
that a UR* is the best way (nor am I convinced that it is not).

None of the above arguments apply to the channel number form.

Craig