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

From: Gomer Thomas (gomer@lgerca.com)
Date: Fri, Mar 26 1999


Message-ID: <36FBF7E3.8C4E2159@lgerca.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 16:10:59 -0500
From: Gomer Thomas <gomer@lgerca.com>
To: www-tv@w3.org
Subject: Re: What "URI" identifier for local TV resources?

Jim,

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.

The "btv:" scheme could also be used to refer to the channels by logical
names, but this would require the overhead of broadcasting the mapping
information which would allow the receiver to resolve the logical names
to actual channels.

In situations where the application on the server does not know exactly
what services the receiver is receiving, or what channels they have been
mapped to, the "btv:" scheme would be needed, since the "tv:" scheme
would not work, but in the situation you describe the "tv:" scheme would
work fine, with little or no overhead.

Jim Helman wrote:

> Applications which are _local_ to a particular cable
> infrastructure, such as EPGs, often need to designate explicit
> channel number (and sometimes tuner) to the settop client in a
> web page.  Similarly, the settop itself may generate HTML
> content with explicit channel numbers.  Under the tv: scheme,
> this would be done with tv:<chan#>.
>
> Just as many desktop applications require "file:" to identify
> local file resources, some STB content and appliations need a
> scheme to identify local TV resources.
>
> So are local, client-relative channels specifiable under the
> current URI proposal?  I didn't see any examples.  By analogy
> with "file:" (which has an optional hostname in RFC1738:
> http://www.w3.org/Addressing/rfc1738.txt, see also
> http://www.w3.org/Addressing/URL/4_1_File.html), it might be
> something like btv://localhost/5 or dropping the hostname,
> just btv:/5.  Or has the intention been to leave this sort of
> identification to the "tv:" scheme?
>
> [By way of introduction, I work at Network Computer (previously
> Navio) on our nextgen client architecture.  Until now, I've been
> too busy with product to participate on www-tv.  But I have been
> impressed with the work the group has accomplished, and I look
> forward to participating.]
>
> -jim
>
> Jim Helman
> Network Computer
> jim@nc.com
> 650.631.4638

--
Gomer Thomas
LGERCA, Inc.
40 Washington Road
Princeton Junction, NJ 08550
phone: 609-716-3513
fax: 609-716-3503