Re: Where are we?

From: hardie@equinix.com
Date: Fri, Oct 08 1999


Message-Id: <199910081817.LAA23639@kiwi.equinix.com>
To: djz@corp.webtv.net (Dan Zigmond)
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 11:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: sjanderson@newshour.org ('Scott J. Anderson'), www-tv@w3c.org
From: hardie@equinix.com
Subject: Re: Where are we?

Dan,
	I think one of the problems all along is that many folks
believe that having a URI scheme that can handle only feeds
is too restricted.  Some time ago I suggested that we could
handle that by having a uri scheme like "feed-tv:" for that,
and then work on a more general URI scheme that could handle
both feeds and individual pieces of content.  
	I think your most recent draft has the appropriate limitations
and namespaces to be a reasonable proposal for feeds/streams.  I think
other groups wanting to use a tv scheme in a more general sense would
find its limitations daunting.  Has your group talked to anyone
from ReplayTV or TiVO, for example?
			best regards,
				Ted Hardie


Note: Speaking for myself, not my employer.



> 
> 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
>