tv:

Where is the latest specification for the "tv:" scheme?  I'm new to this
list, so apologize if this is documented elsewhere.  What I have seen on w3
was just a draft of a proposal with some unfinished areas such as tying in
to ATSC, DVB, etc SI specifications.  Scientific-Atlanta is using our own
version of a "tv:" like URL scheme so we'd like to contribute to the
specification and abide by the standard.

thanks
Dean

Dean Jerding, Ph.D.
Applications Software | Subscriber Networks | Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.
Dean.Jerding@sciatl.com | 770 236 3388 | 770 236 2449 (fax)

-----Original Message-----
From: Philipp Hoschka [ mailto:ph@w3.org <mailto:ph@w3.org> ]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 12:07 AM
To: Dan Zigmond
Cc: 'Larry Masinter'; uri@w3.org; www-tv@w3.org
Subject: Submit TV-URI work to IESG ? (was: Re: "lid" URLs)


Dan,

i think that at least the "tv:" scheme seems to be ready to be
forwarded to the IESG for adoption - what do you think ? There
was not much discussion last time you did an update, so maybe it's
time to wrap this up.

-Philipp

Dan Zigmond a écrit :
>
> Agreed.  We were a little careless in our terminology (as others also
> pointed out), and I just haven't gotten around to revising the drafts.
>
>         Dan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Dan Zigmond
> Senior Group Manager, Client Technologies
> WebTV Networks, Inc.
> djz@corp.webtv.net
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Masinter [ mailto:LM@att.com <mailto:LM@att.com> ]
> Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2000 10:33 AM
> To: uri@w3.org; www-tv@w3.org
> Subject: "lid" URLs
>
> (someone) wrote me:
>
> > I've just noticed a couple of Internet drafts that propose and refer to
a
> > URI scheme called lid:
> >
> >    draft-blackketter-lid-00.txt
> >    draft-finseth-isanlid-00.txt
> >
> > I have two thoughts:
> >
> > (a) these lid:'s look more like URNs to me
> >
> > (b) the lid draft claims that lid:'s are simulatneously URIs and URNs,
but
> > they don't conform to URN syntax (in not having a leading "urn:" or
> > namespace identifier parts).
>
> I don't have a problem with URL-schemes that have URN-like semantics,
> since there are enough of them already (cid, news, etc.). I think the
> wording (saying that lid URLs are URNs) probably needs to change, since
> it just adds confusion.
>
> Larry