On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:47 PM, David Chambers <david.chambers...@gmail.com> wrote: > Of course, this markup applies to YouTube but may not apply to other > services. That being the case, though, I'd still benefit from a `youtube:` > solution since 80% or more of the videos I embed are YouTube videos. The > fact that I'd need to include HTML for the other 20% does not deter me.
I suppose personal projects have been implemented for much less convincing reasons. But if all your implementing is youtude support, then I'd call it that. `youtude:...` not 'video:...`. Although I suppose your trying to come up with a syntax for the more general use case and then move on from there to the more specific. I guess it's that general use case that I don't see the need for and the reason for my objection. With a clearer picture of what you actually what to accomplish, my objections have lessoned. > One thing that I'd like to make clear, Waylan, is that I'm raising the issue > on this list because it's a great place for such a discussion, not because > I'm expecting any of the Markdown implementations to support such syntax. I guess I understood that. Sorry if that didn't come through in my response. I still see developing a syntax for video in general a waste for the reasons previously stated, so I guess I was trying to discourage a useless discussion, but if you're really only interested in a simple syntax to easily embed videos from youtube, vimeo and the like - and not necessarily expecting it to be an all encompassing solution for any embedded video, then I can see how that could be useful as third party add-on to markdown. And this is certainly the place to get good feedback on a solution. > Last night another option occurred to me: `[Video: Soda Pop > Stop](http://www.youtube.com/v/gPbh6Ru7VVM)`. > The reason that I find this option so appealing is that the above remains > valid Markdown in non-Mango contexts. Mango will perform preprocessing to > convert this to the appropriate video markup, but without this preprocessing > the line would simply be converted to a descriptive link. I actually like this. It introduces nothing new, will not trip up unmodified implementations of markdown and still provides enough clues to embed a video properly (assuming a known source is used). Despite what I said above, I suppose you would *not* want to do: [YouTube: Soda Pop Stop](gPbh6Ru7VVM) While that is more specific and won't create false expectations that the syntax will work for any type of video, it won't provide a useful link in an unmodified markdown parser. Perhaps as a safe middleground I'd suggest: [YouTube: Soda Pop Stop](http://www.youtube.com/v/gPbh6Ru7VVM) While I realize youtube can be extracted from parsing the url, by doing the syntax this way, it is more clear to users that this only works for supported known (and popular) video hosting sites. No false expectations about it working for every possible video out there. And maybe in the future when all those variables needed to embed html5 video tags are simplified, a more basic [video: ...] syntax could be adopted as well. I think that's the root of my concern. If you call it '[video:...]' you will get complaints insisting that every possible use case for embedded video be supported - which is just not practical today (as you acknowledge). But if you call it '[youtube:...]` or `[vimeo:...]`, etc., then if others want support for a specific as yet unsupported use-case, they can develop it themselves and maybe even provide their solution for public consumption. But hey, it's your project that you will be maintaining. What do I care? -- ---- \X/ /-\ `/ |_ /-\ |\| Waylan Limberg _______________________________________________ Markdown-Discuss mailing list Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
