Subject: RE: Update of RFC 2838, tv: URI

From: "Deventer, M.O. \(Oskar\) van" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:41:54 +0200

Lisa, all,

What I need is a solution
1) that identifies TV channels reasonably unambiguously,
2) that can handle synonyms when needed,
3) that does not require bilateral agreements, and
4) that does not require active participation of broadcasters.

I think that RFC 2838 satisfies 3) and 4), whereas support of 2) could
be included in the update and 1) could be improved by providing further
guidelines (like the tv:family.hbo.com case, see my earlier email).

What do you think?

Best regards,

Oskar

-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: donderdag 24 augustus 2006 17:55
To: Tim Bray
Cc: [email-masked]; Keesmaat, N.W. (Iko); Keith Moore; Zigmond,
Dan; Eliot Lear
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2838, tv: URI

On Aug 23, 2006, at 8:36 PM, Tim Bray wrote:

> On Aug 21, 2006, at 8:27 AM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>
>> I agree there is a need, for a good interface, to expose some  
>> semantic information about the resource without having to access  
>> it across the net.
>
> I disagree.  It is a design axiom of the Web that URIs are opaque,  
> and that the only way to authoritatively find out anything about  
> what a URI identifies is to dereference it (which, given the  
> caching infrastructure, in many cases won't require going across  
> the net).  This is one of the reasons why the Web exhibits good  
> scaling behavior.

I didn't say that the URI shouldn't be opaque.  I didn't say that  
this need was universal for every link (a solution shouldn't impose a  
cost when not wanted).  I didn't suggest a mechanism that would  
degrade scaling.  I still assert that in many use cases a good UI  
requires a bit of advertisement about the nature a linked resource  
that a user might want to retrieve.

Lisa

This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at http://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 08:30:49 -0400

-------- Original Message --------

> 4) that does not require active participation of broadcasters.

I think the resulting solution set is the null set.

Keith