Subject: RE: draft-zigmond-tv-url-02

From: Dan Zigmond <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 15:59:56 -0700

Again, this is far from being the central point of this debate, but the
words do mean different things.  I read "uniform" as meaning roughly "always
the same".  In this sense, "tv:bbc", for example, could be a "uniform"
identifier for the BBC, in the sense that the BBC could always refer to
their broadcasts this way.  On the other hand, I believe "universal" implies
something more like "occurring everywhere", and "tv:bbc" might not be a
"universal" identifier in that it couldn't be guaranteed to resolve to the
BBC's broadcast signal in all contexts.  Using similar reasoning, "Dan" is a
good uniform name for me, but a lousy universal one.

Putting that aside, it sounds like there are some folks out there who would
like to help us improve the current draft before any publication and some
who would like to see it published in its present form and then fixed (and
republished in the standards track).  What's the best way to make a decision
and wrap this up?  My own preference would be to publish the draft with a
very clear disclaimer, and speed the standards track work along as best we
can concurrently.

	Dan

---------------------------------------------------
Dan Zigmond
Senior Manager, Broadcast Applications
WebTV Networks, Inc.
[email-masked]
---------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 3:32 PM
To: Dan Zigmond
Cc: Michael A. Dolan; [email-masked]; Matt Crawford; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: draft-zigmond-tv-url-02

Dan Zigmond wrote:
> 
> Actually, I think it stands for "uniform".  :-)

Correct, but I think my point remains valid
> 
> These URIs are certainly different from, say, "http:" URIs.  But they are
> similar to "file:", I suppose, and perhaps to "news:".  

Yes, not ones we should be especially proud of.

> ...But I'm not sure
> this point really matters.  The question is whether "tv:" is worth
> documenting as currently specified and used, "fixing" and the documenting,
> or none of the above.

True.

   Brian