Re: first cut at a UR* usage list


Nice job on this.  One comment below on my submission and your note.

What is the next step?  Should we try to distill these more?

At 04:19 PM 12/17/98 -0600, Craig A. Finseth wrote:
>7. Be able to name standard web content that is *also* being made
>available and delivered via some tv data broadcast to local cache:
>[ Note: this item is included for completeness.  In fact, we support
>for this is already part of the http: standard and we don't have to do
>anything. ]

My submission was not very clear.  The point I was trying to make here was
a policy one that obviously does not require a new URI scheme.  I believe
it is important to point out that when content *could* be obtained via a
common scheme on a common transport (i.e. HTTP over Internet), then a
common URL should perhaps be used to tag the object, and specifically to
not be forced to make up a potentially opaque tv-specific reference if you
don't have to just because it is being delivered via a TV transport.
Perhaps this usage is obvious and not in dispute, but just in case not...

Use of a common URI permits Internet-connected devices to do "refresh" and
perform other document/cache management functions that would not work if
the content were only addressable with a tv-specific broadcast URL.

Also, my assumption was that in addition to URI(s), the output of this
discussion list would be recommended practices (policy) and even
potentially using other common Internet protocols to solve the problems
stated here.  I am not assuming that every application scenario described
here will be solved entirely by simply defining URI(s); nor that this group
is limited to URI discussions only.


Michael A. Dolan, Representing DIRECTV,  (619)445-9070   FAX: (619)445-6122
PO Box 1673 Alpine, CA 91903, Overnight: 20239 Japatul Rd, Alpine, CA 91901

Received on Tuesday, 22 December 1998 18:23:40 UTC