RE: Next steps on draft-zigmond-tv-url-02

From: Patrick Schmitz (pschmitz@microsoft.com)
Date: Tue, Aug 31 1999


Message-ID: <3C3175FCC945D211B65100805F1580899EF07D@RED-MSG-07>
From: Patrick Schmitz <pschmitz@microsoft.com>
To: "'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'" <Harald@Alvestrand.no>, Jack.Lang@ntl.com, Dan Zigmond <djz@corp.webtv.net>, www-tv@w3c.org
Cc: mav@liberate.com, Dean Blackketter <dean@corp.webtv.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:20:29 -0700
Subject: RE: Next steps on draft-zigmond-tv-url-02

> 
> 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.

True enough.  You just get lots of names to register.

> 
> 
> >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?

Perhaps - I will leave that to the broadcast folks to decide.

You can restrict the URI forms as needed (e.g. only allow absolute).

> 
> >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.

I should have said that more carefully...  A URI definition does not
necessarily imply that there is a document at the location; a URL does.  The
corresponding http: URL may or may not exist, as noted.

Patrick

Patrick Schmitz  (pschmitz@microsoft.com)
Program Manager - Internet Multimedia Standards 
Microsoft