- From: Craig A. Finseth <fin@finseth.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 09:38:33 -0600 (CST)
- To: martin_spamer@kingston-comms.co.uk
- Cc: www-tv@w3.org
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. This functionality is addressed by the associated lid: URI scheme and (should be (:-)) described in the assciated "guide to using this stuff" RFC. 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. Channel numbers are not unique identifiers: what is on channel 4 here is not the same as what is on channel 4 in New York. >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. For NTSC (analog) TV in the US, channel number to frequency mappings are fixed. However, the reason for omitting the usage was not the mapping, but the fact that channel number are not unique identifiers. Craig
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2000 10:38:34 UTC