Re: I-D submission "Requirements on TV Broadcast URIs"

   > Well, in the sense that the other organizations drop their existing
   > schemes to adopt one that meets the (other) requirements, we gain
   > compatability.

   OK, so I propose you immediately drop your ATSC scheme.
   It isn't used anyway.

   (How does that feel? I say this to make clear what you 
   are saying: "others should adapt, we're right", at least
   that's the way I understand you.)

Well, of course we're right (many (:-)s).  Seriously, the
"compatability" requirement is one that we (or anyone) can not meet on
its face (I won't repeat the argument).

That said, Gomer and I (and probably many others, but not the ones
writing up the proposed schemes) have come to the realization that
URIs must define content at a higher level than the transport -- in
fact, must not refer to the transport at all -- or the scheme won't
work in practice (at least, practice in the US where all the numeric
identifiers associated with transport are routinely rearranged along
the path).

   >    The purpose of this requirement is to acknowledge that there are
   >    other bodies also defining URI schemes. Somehow, we need to align.
   >    Ignoring is not the way achieving that.
   > Then it should be stated this way.  Something like:
   >         Any actual scheme must be coordinated with ATSC, DVB, DAVIC, etc.
   >         and must be usable by those systems (assuming an implementation,
   >         of course).

   Thanks. I'll adapt our draft to that. How about:

   "Any actual scheme must be coordinated with standardisation bodies 
   such as ATSC, DVB, DAVIC, and must be reasonably acceptable to 
   those bodies."

Fine with me!  Thanks!


Received on Wednesday, 18 November 1998 12:45:35 UTC