- From: Jack Lang <fw23@dial.pipex.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:35:13 -0000
- To: <fin@finseth.com>, <jeff.sussna@quokka.com>
- Cc: <hardie@equinix.com>, <www-tv@w3.org>
As Harald Alveson has pointed out, there are two orthogonal namespaces: time/channels and programs. They are not the same. Jack Lang ntl: ----- Original Message ----- From: Craig A. Finseth <fin@finseth.com> To: <jeff.sussna@quokka.com> Cc: <hardie@equinix.com>; <www-tv@w3.org> Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 10:17 PM Subject: Re: TV Broadcast URI Schemes Requirements > Good point. Some advertisers will want to purchase "The X Files", while > others will want to purchase "3 AM on Sunday night". I would disagree with > your characterizing of advertisers as a "tiny" market, though. Perhaps tiny > in numbers relative to consumers browsing EPG's, but certainly not in terms > of weight, power, or importance. > > ...and the URI scheme can handle this case quite well. > > Craig > > Jeff > > -----Original Message----- > From: hardie@equinix.com [mailto:hardie@equinix.com] > Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 1:51 PM > To: jeff.sussna@quokka.com > Cc: hardie@equinix.com > Subject: Re: TV Broadcast URI Schemes Requirements > > > > So far as I know, there is no one in the country who cares about > > watching Channel 2/Sunday/9:00pm. However, lots of people want to > > watch the X-Files. What people want identified is the content, not > > the time slot. > > A minor nit: Advertisers, who provide ancillary content, may purchase > time in this fashion. They commonly do so in order to "blanket" a > series of channels with the same advertisement at the same time. They > also commonly want to check that the advertisement did, in fact, occur > at the stated time. > > A tiny market, I grant you, but one that cares a *lot*. > > (Private response, but feel free to discuss on the public list) > > > regards, > Ted Hardie >
Received on Tuesday, 30 November 1999 02:32:48 UTC