RE: I-D ACTION:draft-zigmond-tv-url-03.txt

Some fundamental limitations identified as early as last summer have still
not been fixed, this draft should not have been published until these issues
have been resolved.

1) This proposal only supports the broadcast model, it provides no support
for the increasingly important on-demand model; a workable TV URI scheme
requires support for BOTH content and broadcast addressing.

The removal of channel numbers is unjustified, it is not obsolete.  Most DTV
consumers select by channel number either directly or channel  +/-, many do
not even use menus, very few will ever use a URI.  Devices using this scheme
are aimed at end consumers where usability is perhaps the more important
issue.

>The channel numbers generally correspond to tuning frequencies in the
various national broadcast frequency standards; for example, "tv:4" in the
United states would be found at 66 MHz.*

This is supposed to be an international standard, not a US standard.  If
channel numbering in the US is fixed to a specific radio frequency, (which I
find difficult to believe) channel numbering should be included on a
"should" or "may" basis.  Current limitations should not be reason to
cripple this standard.  We should be aim for an ideal.

Martin Spamer
Senior Software Engineer
Kingston Vision LTD
Phone +44 (0) 1482 602 670
Fax +44 (0) 01482 602 899
E-Mail martin_spamer@kingston-comms.co.uk
<mailto:martin_spamer@kingston-comms.co.uk> 
http://www.kingston-vision.co.uk/ <http://www.kingston-vision.co.uk/> 


	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Dan Zigmond [SMTP:djz@corp.webtv.net]
	Sent:	Monday, January 10, 2000 9:19 PM
	To:	WWW TV List
	Subject:	FW: I-D ACTION:draft-zigmond-tv-url-03.txt

	The most recent draft of the "tv:" URI specification is now
available on the
	IETF Web site.  The details are below.  I believe this incorporates
all of
	the input I have received to date.


	...

Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2000 06:59:59 UTC