RE: I-D ACTION:draft-zigmond-tv-url-03.txt

From: Dan Zigmond (djz@corp.webtv.net)
Date: Tue, Jan 11 2000

  • Next message: callbackservice@email.com: "Save 50-80% on International Calls and Win $500 in Free phone calls!"

    Message-ID: <15AAE0EBDCC9D1119FFA00805F85642E04CFB295@WNI-MSG-02>
    From: Dan Zigmond <djz@corp.webtv.net>
    To: "'Martin Spamer'" <martin_spamer@kingston-comms.co.uk>, WWW TV List <www-tv@w3.org>
    Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 11:12:31 -0800
    Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-zigmond-tv-url-03.txt
    
    Thanks for taking the time to review this draft.  It's nice to be generating
    some discussion again.
    
    I wanted to clarify a few things:
    
    > this draft should not have been published until these issues
    > have been resolved.
    
    I guess it's difficult to please everybody.  I had hesitated to submit the
    current document as an Internet-Draft until I had more input, but I was
    encouraged on this list (and in private emails) to go ahead precisely to
    encourage more input.  However, I do think it's important to note that
    Internet-Drafts are "published" only in a very limited sense: they expire
    after six months and imply no endorsement whatsoever by the IETF.
    
    > The removal of channel numbers is unjustified, it is not obsolete.
    
    Perhaps the draft is unclear on this point, but it's not the "channel
    numbers" per se that are obsolete.  Rather, numerous people requested that
    we remove channel numbers from the scheme because they were not uniform
    internationally (or even nationally, in some places).  As Craig has said,
    channel 3 in one place is almost certainly different than channel 3 some
    place else; in fact, even in one geography, the numbers are not consistent
    between terrestrial broadcast, satellite, and cable, or between different
    providers of cable and satellite services.  We mention them in the draft
    because they are used occasionally in "tv:" URIs today, but the consensus
    appears to be that this should not continue.  (Harald has probably been the
    most eloquent in making the case against them, so perhaps he can chime in.)
    
    > This is supposed to be an international standard, not a US standard.
    
    We certainly agree on this point, but I'm not sure if it speaks for or
    against including channel numbers.  In general, we've tried to exclude
    broadcast identifiers that can't be made world unique precisely because a
    page authored here in America may be rendered in the UK.  Channel numbers
    certainly fail on this count.
    
    	Dan
    
    
    --------------------------------------------------- 
    Dan Zigmond 
    Senior Manager, Interactive Television Technologies 
    WebTV Networks, Inc. 
    djz@corp.webtv.net 
    --------------------------------------------------- 
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Martin Spamer [mailto:martin_spamer@kingston-comms.co.uk]
    Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 4:00 AM
    To: WWW TV List
    Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-zigmond-tv-url-03.txt
    
    
    
    Some fundamental limitations identified as early as last summer have still
    not been fixed, this draft should not have been published until these issues
    have been resolved.
    
    1) This proposal only supports the broadcast model, it provides no support
    for the increasingly important on-demand model; a workable TV URI scheme
    requires support for BOTH content and broadcast addressing.
    
    The removal of channel numbers is unjustified, it is not obsolete.  Most DTV
    consumers select by channel number either directly or channel  +/-, many do
    not even use menus, very few will ever use a URI.  Devices using this scheme
    are aimed at end consumers where usability is perhaps the more important
    issue.
    
    >The channel numbers generally correspond to tuning frequencies in the
    various national broadcast frequency standards; for example, "tv:4" in the
    United states would be found at 66 MHz.*
    
    This is supposed to be an international standard, not a US standard.  If
    channel numbering in the US is fixed to a specific radio frequency, (which I
    find difficult to believe) channel numbering should be included on a
    "should" or "may" basis.  Current limitations should not be reason to
    cripple this standard.  We should be aim for an ideal.
    
    Martin Spamer
    Senior Software Engineer
    Kingston Vision LTD
    Phone +44 (0) 1482 602 670
    Fax +44 (0) 01482 602 899
    E-Mail martin_spamer@kingston-comms.co.uk
    <mailto:martin_spamer@kingston-comms.co.uk> 
    http://www.kingston-vision.co.uk/ <http://www.kingston-vision.co.uk/> 
    
    
    	-----Original Message-----
    	From:	Dan Zigmond [SMTP:djz@corp.webtv.net]
    	Sent:	Monday, January 10, 2000 9:19 PM
    	To:	WWW TV List
    	Subject:	FW: I-D ACTION:draft-zigmond-tv-url-03.txt
    
    	The most recent draft of the "tv:" URI specification is now
    available on the
    	IETF Web site.  The details are below.  I believe this incorporates
    all of
    	the input I have received to date.
    
    
    	...