RE: about tv:

From: Michael A. Dolan (miked@tbt.com)
Date: Wed, Feb 10 1999


Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990210155713.00a05e70@cts.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 15:57:13 -0800
To: <www-tv@w3.org>
From: "Michael A. Dolan" <miked@tbt.com>
Subject: RE: about tv:

1. Noone will argue that tv: is a great URL.  However it is a good URN.
What the receiver does to resolve it to something useful is another matter.
 The issue of whether "currently tuned" is unambiguous is only relevant in
the strict semantic context of it being a URL.

2. There isn't a scheme proposed yet (that I have seen) that addresses the
multiple tuner issue.

3. Given the constraints of OBJECT and IMG and other places one wishes to
apply the semantics of placing video/audio into a web page, I see little
other mechanism than a URI to do it.  So, then the question really becomes,
if a URI is not appropriate, then how should such HTML rendering behavior
be accomplished?

4. If a URI is appropriate for (3), then how does one put "currently tuned
channel" onto a web page, if not with something like "tv:"?

	Mike

At 03:04 PM 2/10/99 PST, Larry Masinter wrote:
>I think it fails the 'is it well defined?' test.
>
>What would you do with something that has two tuners, for
>example. Which one is the "current" TV channel?
>
>If I get a TV URL on my PC over the web, but I have a TV
>tuner on my PC, am I supposed to use the TV tuner's
>current image? Since it's the TV-of-the-device?
>
>Why not just have a locator that is "context:" whose meaning
>is determined by the context of the document that embeds it.
>
>It could be a private negotiation. I don't see any reason why
>"tv:" adds any information, since there's no actual
>information about the data located.
>
>Larry
>-- 
>http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: fin@visi.com [mailto:fin@visi.com]On Behalf Of Craig A. Finseth
>> Sent: Monday, February 08, 1999 2:46 PM
>> To: masinter@parc.xerox.com
>> Cc: Philipp.Hoschka@sophia.inria.fr
>> Subject: about tv:
>> 
>> 
>> I have been participating in the W3C-URL and the ATSC working groups
>> relating to URI/L/N usage.
>> 
>> It has been mentioned (by me and others) that the "tv:" usage in the
>> Web TV URL scheme (not the "tv:#" or "tv:name", just the "tv:" usage
>> itself) does not "qualify" as a URL scheme because it does not identify
>> a globally unique resource.
>> 
>> Everyone that I know of agrees that the function is useful.  (The
>> function being "put the current TV image in the background and/or a
>> corner of the screen.)
>> 
>> Phil Hoschka referred me to you on this question.  He also suggested
>> copying www-tv@w3.org on your reply.
>> 
>> Craig
>> 
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Dolan, Representing DIRECTV,  (619)445-9070   FAX: (619)445-6122
PO Box 1673 Alpine, CA 91903, Overnight: 20239 Japatul Rd, Alpine, CA 91901