RE: about tv:

From: Larry Masinter (
Date: Wed, Feb 10 1999

From: "Larry Masinter" <>
To: <>
Cc: <>, <>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 15:04:27 PST
Message-ID: <000001be5549$b5d71d60$>
Subject: RE: about tv:

I think it fails the 'is it well defined?' test.

What would you do with something that has two tuners, for
example. Which one is the "current" TV channel?

If I get a TV URL on my PC over the web, but I have a TV
tuner on my PC, am I supposed to use the TV tuner's
current image? Since it's the TV-of-the-device?

Why not just have a locator that is "context:" whose meaning
is determined by the context of the document that embeds it.

It could be a private negotiation. I don't see any reason why
"tv:" adds any information, since there's no actual
information about the data located.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: []On Behalf Of Craig A. Finseth
> Sent: Monday, February 08, 1999 2:46 PM
> To:
> Cc:
> Subject: about tv:
> I have been participating in the W3C-URL and the ATSC working groups
> relating to URI/L/N usage.
> It has been mentioned (by me and others) that the "tv:" usage in the
> Web TV URL scheme (not the "tv:#" or "tv:name", just the "tv:" usage
> itself) does not "qualify" as a URL scheme because it does not identify
> a globally unique resource.
> Everyone that I know of agrees that the function is useful.  (The
> function being "put the current TV image in the background and/or a
> corner of the screen.)
> Phil Hoschka referred me to you on this question.  He also suggested
> copying on your reply.
> Craig