RE: Where are we?

From: Dan Zigmond (djz@corp.webtv.net)
Date: Fri, Oct 08 1999


Message-ID: <15AAE0EBDCC9D1119FFA00805F85642E04CFABB2@WNI-MSG-02>
From: Dan Zigmond <djz@corp.webtv.net>
To: "'Scott J. Anderson'" <sjanderson@newshour.org>, www-tv@w3c.org
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 09:31:16 -0700 
Subject: RE: Where are we?

The goal here is to define a URI scheme for streams of television broadcast
content (i.e., networks or stations or channels) rather than for individual
pieces of content (programs).  So there would be a "tv:" URI for PBS
("tv:pbs.org"), and for local member stations of PBS like WQED
("tv:wqed.org"), but not for individual pieces of programming that happen to
air on PBS.  I see the latter as a different problem.  Important, yes, but
different.

	Dan

--------------------------------------------------- 
Dan Zigmond 
Senior Manager, Broadcast Applications 
WebTV Networks, Inc. 
djz@corp.webtv.net 
--------------------------------------------------- 



-----Original Message-----
From: Scott J. Anderson [mailto:sjanderson@newshour.org]
Sent: Friday, October 08, 1999 9:00 AM
To: djz@corp.webtv.net; www-tv@w3c.org
Subject: Re: Where are we?


Quick question...

A particular show's URL for a network is usually network.com/show. For
example,
The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer's URL on PBS  is http://www.pbs.org/newshour/.
Would the URI handle show-specific addresses or only domain names? If I
follow
you correctly, we would have to switch to newshour.pbs.org. That, of course,
is
not the end of the world. Just curious.

--sja

Dan Zigmond wrote:

> Discussions seem to have stalled again, so I thought maybe I would make an
> attempt to summarize where I think we might be now in terms of a proposal
to
> take back to the IESG/IETF.
>
> Several people expressed discomfort with the use of broadcast call signs
of
> the form KQED.  Although these are world unique and standardized by the
ITU
> (I think), they appear to be very uncommon outside the United States.  So
I
> would like to propose that we further limit the "tv:" URI to two forms:
>
>         tv:                     meaning "current channel"
>         tv:<network>    where <network> is a DNS name
>
> So some valid "tv:" URIs would be:
>
>         tv:                     [of course]
>         tv:abc.com              American Broadcasting Company
>         tv:abc.net.au   Australian Broadcast Corporation
>         tv:kron.com             KRON in San Francisco
>         tv:channel4.com Channel 4 in the UK
>         tv:west.hbo.com HBO West
>         tv:one.bbc.co.uk        BBC1
>
> As I think we've discussed, the rule is that if you own the domain, you
can
> register names using that domain.  So HBO can register "west.hbo.com" as
> their official name for their West Coast feed, and BBC can register
> "one.bbc.co.uk" or "1.bbc.co.uk" or whatever they want for BBC1.
>
> I think this is a reasonably final proposal.  It basically collapses all
the
> other forms into the DNS namespace, and moves any dispute over names to
> disputes over DNS.  (Of course, DNS disputes aren't easy to resolve, but
at
> least if we ever get a good mechanism there it will automatically be
applied
> to "tv:" URIs too.)
>
> I'm ready to do another revision to the Internet-Draft based on this
> approach, but I thought I'd make another check for comments first.
Perhaps
> we can try to have a new draft next week and get it to the IESG.
>
>         Dan
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Dan Zigmond
> Senior Manager, Broadcast Applications
> WebTV Networks, Inc.
> djz@corp.webtv.net
> ---------------------------------------------------

_______________________________
Scott J. Anderson, technologist
The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
sjanderson@newshour.org
703.998.2117
ICQ communications center: http://wwp.icq.com/34675744
"I sing the body electric" -- Walt Whitman