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