- From: Henning Timcke <henning.timcke@werft22.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 18:42:28 +0100
- To: "'fin@finseth.com'" <fin@finseth.com>, "djz@corp.webtv.net" <djz@corp.webtv.net>
- Cc: "tenkate@natlab.research.philips.com" <tenkate@natlab.research.philips.com>, "simon@arch.sel.sony.com" <simon@arch.sel.sony.com>, "www-tv@w3.org" <www-tv@w3.org>
From my point of view the document could understand "tv:" as a placeholder for any protocol suitable for the purposes intended. There should be a clear differention between transport and transport protocol To identifiy Broadcast sTations or channels e.g ORF 1 or SRG 3 i propose a name resolution similar to DNS, or WINS -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Craig A. Finseth [SMTP:fin@finseth.com] Gesendet am: Montag, 9. November 1998 18:09 An: djz@corp.webtv.net Cc: tenkate@natlab.research.philips.com; simon@arch.sel.sony.com; www-tv@w3.org Betreff: Re: URL: Background and Requirements ... 1. Broadcast content URLs. My own work has so far focused on the first class of URL, and it is for these problems that the "tv:" URL scheme was designed. In the simplest case, the "tv:" URL is simply used as a placeholder for whatever is being broadcast on the "current" channel. ... So far, so good. A slightly more complicated usage of the "tv:" scheme is to describe a stream of broadcast content using some sort of identifier. My original proposal used station and network identifiers like "tv:bbc" or "tv:kqed". We've used this experimentally here at Microsoft with some success, but it does require some sort of registry to keep identifiers unique. IANA could do this, or we could define some other mechanism. This simple form does not scale well: network IDs are not consistent across providers, nor is it desirable that they be. For example, we (USSB) carry both HBO feeds (Eastern and Western time zones, the latter being 3 hours behind the former). We need two different IDs (of course). We call them HBO and HBOW. Cable systems on the east coast that carry just one HBO feed usually carry the east cost feed (of course) and call it HBO. No problem. Cable systems on the west coast that carry just one HBO feed usually carry the _west_ coast feed (no surprize) and call it HBO. You see the problem. The user visible name can _not_ be used as the key identifier! 2. Broadcast stream URLs. Much of the work so far in TV-oriented groups like DVB seems to have focused on URLs for describing the actual ... To summarize, broadcast content URLs are used to say "show me what's being broadcast on the current TV channel" or "show me what's being broadcast on XXX network wherever that network is". What I've called broadcast stream URLs are used to say "show me what's on XXX channel", where "XXX" is sufficiently detailed to uniquely define a specific slice of the broadcast spectrum. And, as the requirements document has identfied, this form of URL is not generally useful for URLs embedded in broadcast content. Those URLs must be able to continue to identify the same content after substantial transformations of the broadcast stream. I would propose that this interest group produce two documents. The first would be an Internet-Draft describing a broadcast content URL scheme, since this scheme could be used for all television applications and would not be specific to any given TV broadcast transport. The And "tv:" (with no other forms or extras) does this. second Internet-Draft would give guidelines for defining broadcast stream URLs, and perhaps give specific schemes for some of the popular transports like NTSC, PAL, DVB, and ATSC. [>] Okay, this has to be discussed: what transport is NTSC, PAL, DVB, and ATSC ! Again, the forms must be transport-independant. That's the point. Do these sound like reasonable goals? I think the first project is Yes. pretty straight-forward; I think there's only been one proposal on these sorts of URLs, and I think the problem is simple enough that the solution could be fairly non-controversial. The broadcast stream URLs, however, require a lot of knowledge of the specific transport. Perhaps it would be worth getting together for a face-to-face meeting to talk through the various proposals here. Gomer and I are working on such a proposal that meets all criteria. Craig [>] Please tell me when you think it's ready, I'd like to read it Henning
Received on Monday, 9 November 1998 12:45:54 UTC