- From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>
- Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 23:40:26 +0200
- To: Patrick Schmitz <pschmitz@microsoft.com>, Jack.Lang@ntl.com, Dan Zigmond <djz@corp.webtv.net>, www-tv@w3c.org
- Cc: mav@liberate.com, Dean Blackketter <dean@corp.webtv.net>
At 14:03 31.08.99 -0700, Patrick Schmitz wrote:
> > tv:bbc1.bbc.co.uk solves this.
>
>A URI is not just a domain name, but can describe hierarchy.
If you want hierarchy structured like the standard hierarchy conventions,
you'd better make sure that's what you want to do.
My point wasn't hierarchy really, but that if you have globally unique
labels, you can create as many of them as you need.
>Why not use an approach like:
>
> tv:bbc.co.uk/bbc1
>
>You can further qualify each channel to distinguish versions of a channel
>(wide, regional, etc.)
>
> tv:bbc.co.uk/bbc1/wide
> tv:bbc.co.uk/bbc1/wales
> etc.
One makes as much sense as the other to me - see the "btv:" proposal.
(Craig, can you repost that proposal to this mailing list, so everyone has
seen it?)
Let's check if this is more useful than "just" having independent,
nonhierarchical labels.
Is there any context in which you want ../wales to make sense?
>Forgive me examples if "wales" is a poor choice for regional variant. I
>trust it conveys the point.
>
>Note also that these are URIs and not URLs. The path need not have any
>real-world or web-based meaning. Naturally, a broadcaster is free to provide
>equivalent http-based URLs for informative web pages if they so choose.
well, I thought set-top boxes existed in the real world :-)
We'd better make sure we know what real-world meaning we agree that a tv:
UR? has before we declare this discussion finished.
Harald
--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no
Received on Tuesday, 31 August 1999 18:04:46 UTC