- From: Craig A. Finseth <fin@finseth.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 15:55:20 -0600 (CST)
- To: jeff.sussna@quokka.com
- Cc: www-tv@w3.org
... 3. The document states that "given a URI, it must be possible for a receiver to actually locate the resource, or conclude that it is not reachable?" Doesn't this rely on the presence of extrenal software? I.e., URN resolvers and the like? No, it relies on mapping tables. All resolution is handled in the receiver. The assumptions section clearly indicates that any scheme must operate in a "receive only" mode. RESPONSE: In my mind, a mapping table IS a URN resolver. Anyway, it still seems beyond the scope of the URI spec. Clarification noted. We agree. 6. To restate my above comment more generally, I would add to the requirements that a TV URI must completely describe the content being identified. In other words, a TV resource identifier must in fact uniquely (either by location in the case of URL or equality in the case of URN) identify a TV resource. It does this. What it does not do (by design) is tell you from inspection how to obtain the content (it is impossible to do this while remaining transport independent): it relies on transport-dependent mapping tables for this portion of the system. RESPONSE: Yes, it does this, except in the case where a URI returns multiple resources. This seems to me to go against at least the spirit of URI's. It Well, in an environment where you... 1) Identify episodes, and the same episode appears more than once in the schedule. 2) Identify data modules, and the same module comes around more than once in a carousel. I think that a URI returning multiple resources at least matches what quite a few people expect it to. (If you'd rather, think of them as multiple instances of the same resource.) also makes me uncomfortable to think about a scheme where I don't know exactly what I'll get except in some content-provider specific way. Note Keep in mind also that in many cases, the same person is creating the content and assigning the URIs. There should be few surprizes when resolving URIs. that Apache had the notion of content negotiation which never quite made it to universality, and thus never was fully usable. Pity. It was a good idea and we needed it. Craig
Received on Monday, 29 November 1999 16:55:25 UTC