[videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
What option in feedburner causes their to be id #s attached to the end of a media filename? Is it the Total Stats Pro tracking of media enclosures?ie. http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms.mp4?d=25 via:http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilmsThis feed doesnt work in FireAnt or any aggregator that currently uses typical file extention detection of media format (since often mime types in feeds are not accurate). Should'nt we get feedburner to modify it so its more cross-compatible (such as ending the url with .ext)? This is annoying and even though not technically wrong to do on feedburner's part, they should have taken this issue into consideration before breaking direct media urls like this. I dont want to write new code to handle 'special' direct media url formats. Once mime types are much more accurate, that's obviously the most proper way to detect a file format. but the reality is, file extensions hold weight rigth now. Unless someone can enlighten me to another approach. Worse case, i write code to work with these feedburner urls. But prefer to have feedburner do the mod.thanks,sull-- Sull http://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:17:15 +0100, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ie. http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms.mp4?d=25 > via: > http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms > > This feed doesnt work in FireAnt or any aggregator that currently uses > typical file extention detection of media format (since often mime types > in > feeds are not accurate). > > Should'nt we get feedburner to modify it so its more cross-compatible > (such > as ending the url with .ext)? This is annoying and even though not > technically wrong to do on feedburner's part, they should have taken this > issue into consideration before breaking direct media urls like this. I > dont want to write new code to handle 'special' direct media url formats. The file name still has a .mp4 extenstion. The ?id=25 is the query string. Without knowing for sure I'm guessing that FireANT fails because it doesn't follow redirects (the URL responds with a 302 header that points to the original video URL. So Feedburner has a correct filename ending in .mp4 and they are even sending the correct mime type (video/mp4). If an aggregator doesn't work with these URLs the aggregator needs to use a proper HTTP library. Setting up limitations like "video files must have a file extension" and "you cannot use redirects" are more than a little silly. This isn't a case of having to write special software to handle these special URLs. These are normal URLs and if the software was using HTTP correctly (following redirects, breaking apart filename from query string before checking for file extension) there would be no problems. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/ > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
true.but it would be so simple if redirect urls with parameters just added a file extension parameter at the end as well. that would be a friendlier approach. RSS aggregation of item enclosures were intended to be the actual direct url to media file. But, I suppose you cannot get around these redirects and url params on the enclosures for these tracking purposes and whatever else. Problem also is, i've seen redirect urls that do not hold proper header data and no reference to filename is url. This is just yet another standards issue. I did note that feedburner was not technically doing anything 'wrong' but its definately an annoyance one resolvable by simply adding the filename with extension at the end of the url string. why is that not less acceptable? Regardless, I will use http check and hope that most cases actually have proper header info on the file. no guarantees there but at least feedburner is doing it right. sull On 3/16/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:17:15 +0100, Michael Sullivan<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> ie. http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms.mp4?d=25 > via:> http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms>> This feed doesnt work in FireAnt or any aggregator that currently uses> typical file extention detection of media format (since often mime types > in> feeds are not accurate).>> Should'nt we get feedburner to modify it so its more cross-compatible> (such> as ending the url with .ext)? This is annoying and even though not > technically wrong to do on feedburner's part, they should have taken this> issue into consideration before breaking direct media urls like this. I> dont want to write new code to handle 'special' direct media url formats. The file name still has a .mp4 extenstion. The ?id=25 is the query string.Without knowing for sure I'm guessing that FireANT fails because itdoesn't follow redirects (the URL responds with a 302 header that points to the original video URL.So Feedburner has a correct filename ending in .mp4 and they are evensending the correct mime type (video/mp4). If an aggregator doesn't workwith these URLs the aggregator needs to use a proper HTTP library. Setting up limitations like "video files must have a file extension" and "youcannot use redirects" are more than a little silly.This isn't a case of having to write special software to handle these special URLs. These are normal URLs and if the software was using HTTPcorrectly (following redirects, breaking apart filename from query stringbefore checking for file extension) there would be no problems. --Andreas Haugstrup Pedersenhttp://www.solitude.dk/ >Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/-- Sullhttp://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
Could you give me a RSS URL that uses this? I have never encountered this issue here. We should still be able to download the files using that URL convention. -Josh On 3/16/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:17:15 +0100, Michael Sullivan > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ie. http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms.mp4?d=25 > > via: > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms > > > > This feed doesnt work in FireAnt or any aggregator that currently uses > > typical file extention detection of media format (since often mime types > > in > > feeds are not accurate). > > > > Should'nt we get feedburner to modify it so its more cross-compatible > > (such > > as ending the url with .ext)? This is annoying and even though not > > technically wrong to do on feedburner's part, they should have taken this > > issue into consideration before breaking direct media urls like this. I > > dont want to write new code to handle 'special' direct media url formats. > > The file name still has a .mp4 extenstion. The ?id=25 is the query string. > Without knowing for sure I'm guessing that FireANT fails because it > doesn't follow redirects (the URL responds with a 302 header that points > to the original video URL. > > So Feedburner has a correct filename ending in .mp4 and they are even > sending the correct mime type (video/mp4). If an aggregator doesn't work > with these URLs the aggregator needs to use a proper HTTP library. Setting > up limitations like "video files must have a file extension" and "you > cannot use redirects" are more than a little silly. > > This isn't a case of having to write special software to handle these > special URLs. These are normal URLs and if the software was using HTTP > correctly (following redirects, breaking apart filename from query string > before checking for file extension) there would be no problems. > > -- > Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen > http://www.solitude.dk/ > > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
I was concerned about letting feedburner alter my links, but in the end I agree with Andreas. The file urls still end with the proper extensions. There is simply a query string on the url as well.I dont pretent to know whatever language it is your coding in, but in the languages I've used it's pretty easy to get the requested file name and extension from a url even if there are a bunch of query string variables at the end. Is that an option? Or, you could just check the extension after following any redirects. (although ideally you would not consider query strings as part of the file name even for a 200 http response). - Dave-- http://www.DavidMeade.com On 3/16/06, Andreas Haugstrup < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:These are normal URLs and if the software was using HTTP correctly (following redirects, breaking apart filename from query stringbefore checking for file extension) there would be no problems. SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms.mp4?d=25is a redirect for: http://www.cinemabank.co.uk/spainful/MP4/fashion05POD.mp4what would be wrong with this format instead?http://feeds.feedburner.com/ spainfulfilms?d=25&file=fashion05POD.mp4 On 3/16/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: true.but it would be so simple if redirect urls with parameters just added a file extension parameter at the end as well. that would be a friendlier approach. RSS aggregation of item enclosures were intended to be the actual direct url to media file. But, I suppose you cannot get around these redirects and url params on the enclosures for these tracking purposes and whatever else. Problem also is, i've seen redirect urls that do not hold proper header data and no reference to filename is url. This is just yet another standards issue. I did note that feedburner was not technically doing anything 'wrong' but its definately an annoyance one resolvable by simply adding the filename with extension at the end of the url string. why is that not less acceptable? Regardless, I will use http check and hope that most cases actually have proper header info on the file. no guarantees there but at least feedburner is doing it right. sull On 3/16/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:17:15 +0100, Michael Sullivan<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> ie. http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms.mp4?d=25 > via:> http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms>> This feed doesnt work in FireAnt or any aggregator that currently uses > typical file extention detection of media format (since often mime types > in> feeds are not accurate).>> Should'nt we get feedburner to modify it so its more cross-compatible> (such> as ending the url with .ext)? This is annoying and even though not > technically wrong to do on feedburner's part, they should have taken this> issue into consideration before breaking direct media urls like this. I> dont want to write new code to handle 'special' direct media url formats. The file name still has a .mp4 extenstion. The ?id=25 is the query string.Without knowing for sure I'm guessing that FireANT fails because itdoesn't follow redirects (the URL responds with a 302 header that points to the original video URL.So Feedburner has a correct filename ending in .mp4 and they are evensending the correct mime type (video/mp4). If an aggregator doesn't workwith these URLs the aggregator needs to use a proper HTTP library. Setting up limitations like "video files must have a file extension" and "youcannot use redirects" are more than a little silly.This isn't a case of having to write special software to handle these special URLs. These are normal URLs and if the software was using HTTPcorrectly (following redirects, breaking apart filename from query stringbefore checking for file extension) there would be no problems. --Andreas Haugstrup Pedersenhttp://www.solitude.dk/ >Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/-- Sull http://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org -- Sullhttp://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
Just to reiterate... I believe these URLs work as expected in FireAnt. Please send me an RSS feed that uses this option in Feedburner so I can double check. Thanks.-JoshOn 3/16/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: true.but it would be so simple if redirect urls with parameters just added a file extension parameter at the end as well. that would be a friendlier approach. RSS aggregation of item enclosures were intended to be the actual direct url to media file. But, I suppose you cannot get around these redirects and url params on the enclosures for these tracking purposes and whatever else. Problem also is, i've seen redirect urls that do not hold proper header data and no reference to filename is url. This is just yet another standards issue. I did note that feedburner was not technically doing anything 'wrong' but its definately an annoyance one resolvable by simply adding the filename with extension at the end of the url string. why is that not less acceptable? Regardless, I will use http check and hope that most cases actually have proper header info on the file. no guarantees there but at least feedburner is doing it right. sull On 3/16/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:17:15 +0100, Michael Sullivan<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> ie. http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms.mp4?d=25 > via:> http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms>> This feed doesnt work in FireAnt or any aggregator that currently uses > typical file extention detection of media format (since often mime types > in> feeds are not accurate).>> Should'nt we get feedburner to modify it so its more cross-compatible> (such> as ending the url with .ext)? This is annoying and even though not > technically wrong to do on feedburner's part, they should have taken this> issue into consideration before breaking direct media urls like this. I> dont want to write new code to handle 'special' direct media url formats. The file name still has a .mp4 extenstion. The ?id=25 is the query string.Without knowing for sure I'm guessing that FireANT fails because itdoesn't follow redirects (the URL responds with a 302 header that points to the original video URL.So Feedburner has a correct filename ending in .mp4 and they are evensending the correct mime type (video/mp4). If an aggregator doesn't workwith these URLs the aggregator needs to use a proper HTTP library. Setting up limitations like "video files must have a file extension" and "youcannot use redirects" are more than a little silly.This isn't a case of having to write special software to handle these special URLs. These are normal URLs and if the software was using HTTPcorrectly (following redirects, breaking apart filename from query stringbefore checking for file extension) there would be no problems. --Andreas Haugstrup Pedersenhttp://www.solitude.dk/ >Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/-- Sull http://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service . SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
my problem is just because i technically can figure out the media format by taking the scenic route, why shouldnt a redirect url to a media file frickn include the media file name in it as well and make life easier for everyone. no? to me, this url is silly. it includes a fake filename based on the channel name and file extension. yes, more silly than my expectation of such urls following a logical standard. i dont care if i can technically 'handle' a redirect or reading header info to load a proper media player. i shouldnt have to care if other services are not caring about preserving logic in an enclosure url. whats the difference? this url is stupid and self serving.http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms.mp4?d=25 this url is logical and cross-compatible http://www.cinemabank.co.uk/spainful/MP4/fashion05POD.mp4let's argue that point, and put the technical feasibility to the side for now.anyone have an opinion on this?sull On 3/16/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms.mp4?d=25is a redirect for: http://www.cinemabank.co.uk/spainful/MP4/fashion05POD.mp4what would be wrong with this format instead? http://feeds.feedburner.com/ spainfulfilms?d=25&file=fashion05POD.mp4 On 3/16/06, Michael Sullivan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: true.but it would be so simple if redirect urls with parameters just added a file extension parameter at the end as well. that would be a friendlier approach. RSS aggregation of item enclosures were intended to be the actual direct url to media file. But, I suppose you cannot get around these redirects and url params on the enclosures for these tracking purposes and whatever else. Problem also is, i've seen redirect urls that do not hold proper header data and no reference to filename is url. This is just yet another standards issue. I did note that feedburner was not technically doing anything 'wrong' but its definately an annoyance one resolvable by simply adding the filename with extension at the end of the url string. why is that not less acceptable? Regardless, I will use http check and hope that most cases actually have proper header info on the file. no guarantees there but at least feedburner is doing it right. sull On 3/16/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:17:15 +0100, Michael Sullivan<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> ie. http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms.mp4?d=25 > via:> http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms>> This feed doesnt work in FireAnt or any aggregator that currently uses > typical file extention detection of media format (since often mime types > in> feeds are not accurate).>> Should'nt we get feedburner to modify it so its more cross-compatible> (such> as ending the url with .ext)? This is annoying and even though not > technically wrong to do on feedburner's part, they should have taken this> issue into consideration before breaking direct media urls like this. I> dont want to write new code to handle 'special' direct media url formats. The file name still has a .mp4 extenstion. The ?id=25 is the query string.Without knowing for sure I'm guessing that FireANT fails because itdoesn't follow redirects (the URL responds with a 302 header that points to the original video URL.So Feedburner has a correct filename ending in .mp4 and they are evensending the correct mime type (video/mp4). If an aggregator doesn't workwith these URLs the aggregator needs to use a proper HTTP library. Setting up limitations like "video files must have a file extension" and "youcannot use redirects" are more than a little silly.This isn't a case of having to write special software to handle these special URLs. These are normal URLs and if the software was using HTTPcorrectly (following redirects, breaking apart filename from query stringbefore checking for file extension) there would be no problems. --Andreas Haugstrup Pedersenhttp://www.solitude.dk/ >Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/-- Sull http://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org -- Sullhttp://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org -- Sullhttp://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
edit:this url is logical and cross-compatible http://feeds.feedburner.com/ spainfulfilms?d=25&file=fashion05POD.mp4 On 3/16/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: my problem is just because i technically can figure out the media format by taking the scenic route, why shouldnt a redirect url to a media file frickn include the media file name in it as well and make life easier for everyone. no? to me, this url is silly. it includes a fake filename based on the channel name and file extension. yes, more silly than my expectation of such urls following a logical standard. i dont care if i can technically 'handle' a redirect or reading header info to load a proper media player. i shouldnt have to care if other services are not caring about preserving logic in an enclosure url. whats the difference? this url is stupid and self serving. http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms.mp4?d=25 this url is logical and cross-compatible http://www.cinemabank.co.uk/spainful/MP4/fashion05POD.mp4let's argue that point, and put the technical feasibility to the side for now.anyone have an opinion on this? sull On 3/16/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms.mp4?d=25is a redirect for: http://www.cinemabank.co.uk/spainful/MP4/fashion05POD.mp4what would be wrong with this format instead? http://feeds.feedburner.com/ spainfulfilms?d=25&file=fashion05POD.mp4 On 3/16/06, Michael Sullivan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: true.but it would be so simple if redirect urls with parameters just added a file extension parameter at the end as well. that would be a friendlier approach. RSS aggregation of item enclosures were intended to be the actual direct url to media file. But, I suppose you cannot get around these redirects and url params on the enclosures for these tracking purposes and whatever else. Problem also is, i've seen redirect urls that do not hold proper header data and no reference to filename is url. This is just yet another standards issue. I did note that feedburner was not technically doing anything 'wrong' but its definately an annoyance one resolvable by simply adding the filename with extension at the end of the url string. why is that not less acceptable? Regardless, I will use http check and hope that most cases actually have proper header info on the file. no guarantees there but at least feedburner is doing it right. sull On 3/16/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:17:15 +0100, Michael Sullivan<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> ie. http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms.mp4?d=25 > via:> http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms>> This feed doesnt work in FireAnt or any aggregator that currently uses > typical file extention detection of media format (since often mime types > in> feeds are not accurate).>> Should'nt we get feedburner to modify it so its more cross-compatible> (such> as ending the url with .ext)? This is annoying and even though not > technically wrong to do on feedburner's part, they should have taken this> issue into consideration before breaking direct media urls like this. I> dont want to write new code to handle 'special' direct media url formats. The file name still has a .mp4 extenstion. The ?id=25 is the query string.Without knowing for sure I'm guessing that FireANT fails because itdoesn't follow redirects (the URL responds with a 302 header that points to the original video URL.So Feedburner has a correct filename ending in .mp4 and they are evensending the correct mime type (video/mp4). If an aggregator doesn't workwith these URLs the aggregator needs to use a proper HTTP library. Setting up limitations like "video files must have a file extension" and "youcannot use redirects" are more than a little silly.This isn't a case of having to write special software to handle these special URLs. These are normal URLs and if the software was using HTTPcorrectly (following redirects, breaking apart filename from query stringbefore checking for file extension) there would be no problems. --Andreas Haugstrup Pedersenhttp://www.solitude.dk/ >Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/-- Sull http://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org -- Sullhttp://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org -- Sullhttp://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org -- Sullhttp://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
josh, i did in my message. i have been referring to this example:http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms On 3/16/06, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Could you give me a RSS URL that uses this?I have never encountered this issue here. We should still be able todownload the files using that URL convention.-JoshOn 3/16/06, Andreas Haugstrup < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:17:15 +0100, Michael Sullivan> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > ie. http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms.mp4?d=25> > via:> > http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms> >> > This feed doesnt work in FireAnt or any aggregator that currently uses> > typical file extention detection of media format (since often mime types > > in> > feeds are not accurate).> >> > Should'nt we get feedburner to modify it so its more cross-compatible> > (such> > as ending the url with .ext)? This is annoying and even though not > > technically wrong to do on feedburner's part, they should have taken this> > issue into consideration before breaking direct media urls like this. I> > dont want to write new code to handle 'special' direct media url formats. >> The file name still has a .mp4 extenstion. The ?id=25 is the query string.> Without knowing for sure I'm guessing that FireANT fails because it> doesn't follow redirects (the URL responds with a 302 header that points > to the original video URL.>> So Feedburner has a correct filename ending in .mp4 and they are even> sending the correct mime type (video/mp4). If an aggregator doesn't work> with these URLs the aggregator needs to use a proper HTTP library. Setting > up limitations like "video files must have a file extension" and "you> cannot use redirects" are more than a little silly.>> This isn't a case of having to write special software to handle these > special URLs. These are normal URLs and if the software was using HTTP> correctly (following redirects, breaking apart filename from query string> before checking for file extension) there would be no problems. >> --> Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen> http://www.solitude.dk/ >> Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.>> >> Yahoo! Groups LinksYahoo! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/-- Sull http://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
David,I know, you are correct. I am not going to argue that frome a technical point of view, these urls can be handled by media aggreators. I want to debate now whether services like feedburner or any other that alters actual enclosure urls should follow some sort of standard or not. What do you think? On 3/16/06, David Meade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I was concerned about letting feedburner alter my links, but in the end I agree with Andreas. The file urls still end with the proper extensions. There is simply a query string on the url as well.I dont pretent to know whatever language it is your coding in, but in the languages I've used it's pretty easy to get the requested file name and extension from a url even if there are a bunch of query string variables at the end. Is that an option? Or, you could just check the extension after following any redirects. (although ideally you would not consider query strings as part of the file name even for a 200 http response). - Dave-- http://www.DavidMeade.com On 3/16/06, Andreas Haugstrup < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: These are normal URLs and if the software was using HTTP correctly (following redirects, breaking apart filename from query stringbefore checking for file extension) there would be no problems. SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service . -- Sullhttp://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
On 3/16/06, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Could you give me a RSS URL that uses this? I have never encountered this issue here. We should still be able todownload the files using that URL convention.My feed recently updated to this sytesm: http://www.davidmeade.com/feedOn 3/16/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:I did note that feedburner was not technically doing anything 'wrong' but its definately an annoyance one resolvable by simply adding the filename with extension at the end of the url string. why is that not less acceptable? Actually ideally both would happen so that all parties are trying to be as widely useable as possible. I guess my thought is having feedburner do this as a fix is less acceptable because it only 'fixes' one feed source (that wasnt really doing anything wrong anyway) ... there are bound to be others and more and more and more in the future. Ideally, aggrigators would correctly recognize what part of the url is a filename and what part is a query string (and correctly follow redirects before bothering with any of that) SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
Well, on one hand ... If I were feedburner I probably would have put &filename=origional_file.mov at the end. Just make sure they werent going to break any systems already in place. I agree with you there, it seems a simple safe guard for backward compatability. On the other hand ... They're feed makers not really feed aggregators ... It's possible it just never occured to them that some systems might not be acting on the acrual filename but rather a larger portion of the url. I'm not sure the url system they've used is any more 'silly' than it is to expect them to tack on a query string variable they dont actually need to recieve in order to provide the media.All that being said, yeah I think it would be great if some standard could be agreed upon such that enclosure redirects should always end with the filename ... why not? Some may chose to use an ending variable such as &filename=origional_file.ext or some might use a more fancy redirect like http://redirecting-service.com/user/filename.ext ... Dont see how such a standard could be a bad thing.Is this something that microformats might be able to provide? - DaveOn 3/16/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: David,I know, you are correct. I am not going to argue that frome a technical point of view, these urls can be handled by media aggreators. I want to debate now whether services like feedburner or any other that alters actual enclosure urls should follow some sort of standard or not. What do you think? -- http://www.DavidMeade.com SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
I agree with your response.To me, it's not about knowing whether or not I can problem solve such things.Its about "Why should I have to?"Same applies to iTunes xml, in particular the channel image reference. If developers constantly say... oh well, i guess i should adapt to the latest concoction of whatever then the shit never ends. if standards are held up, respected and created when logic demands it, then at the end of the day, things are just better! aye.sullOn 3/16/06, David Meade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well, on one hand ... If I were feedburner I probably would have put &filename=origional_file.mov at the end. Just make sure they werent going to break any systems already in place. I agree with you there, it seems a simple safe guard for backward compatability. On the other hand ... They're feed makers not really feed aggregators ... It's possible it just never occured to them that some systems might not be acting on the acrual filename but rather a larger portion of the url. I'm not sure the url system they've used is any more 'silly' than it is to expect them to tack on a query string variable they dont actually need to recieve in order to provide the media.All that being said, yeah I think it would be great if some standard could be agreed upon such that enclosure redirects should always end with the filename ... why not? Some may chose to use an ending variable such as &filename=origional_file.ext or some might use a more fancy redirect like http://redirecting-service.com/user/filename.ext ... Dont see how such a standard could be a bad thing. Is this something that microformats might be able to provide? - DaveOn 3/16/06, Michael Sullivan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: David,I know, you are correct. I am not going to argue that frome a technical point of view, these urls can be handled by media aggreators. I want to debate now whether services like feedburner or any other that alters actual enclosure urls should follow some sort of standard or not. What do you think? -- http://www.DavidMeade.com SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service . -- Sullhttp://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
> this url is logical and cross-compatible > http://feeds.feedburner.com/ spainfulfilms?d=25&file=fashion05POD.mp4 I agree with this. If the file is not a real file but rather a redirect then it shouldn't have a file extension like .mp4. Not to mention the current way Feedburner has it set up, it looks like each enclosure is actually the same file (i.e. spainfulfilems.mp4). If the URL were like the one above then there would be a lot less confusion IMHO. -Josh On 3/16/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >edit: > > > > this url is logical and cross-compatible > http://feeds.feedburner.com/ spainfulfilms?d=25&file=fashion05POD.mp4 > > > > > On 3/16/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > my problem is > > just because i technically can figure out the media format by taking the > > scenic route, why shouldnt a redirect url to a media file frickn include > > the media file name in it as well and make life easier for everyone. no? > > to me, this url is silly. it includes a fake filename based on the channel > > name and file extension. yes, more silly than my expectation of such urls > > following a logical standard. i dont care if i can technically 'handle' a > > redirect or reading header info to load a proper media player. i > > shouldnt have to care if other services are not caring about preserving > > logic in an enclosure url. whats the difference? > > > > this url is stupid and self serving. > > > > > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms.mp4?d=25 > > > > > > this url is logical and cross-compatible > > > > > > http://www.cinemabank.co.uk/spainful/MP4/fashion05POD.mp4 > > > > > > let's argue that point, and put the technical feasibility to the side for > > now. > > > > anyone have an opinion on this? > > > > sull > > > > > > > > On 3/16/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms.mp4?d=25 > > > > > > is a redirect for: > > >http://www.cinemabank.co.uk/spainful/MP4/fashion05POD.mp4 > > > > > > what would be wrong with this format instead? > > > > > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/ spainfulfilms?d=25&file=fashion05POD.mp4 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3/16/06, Michael Sullivan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > true. > > > > but it would be so simple if redirect urls with parameters just added a > > > > file extension parameter at the end as well. that would be a friendlier > > > > approach. > > > > RSS aggregation of item enclosures were intended to be the actual > > > > direct url to media file. But, I suppose you cannot get around these > > > > redirects and url params on the enclosures for these tracking > > > > purposes and whatever else. > > > > > > > > Problem also is, i've seen redirect urls that do not hold proper header > > > > data and no reference to filename is url. This is just yet another > > > > standards issue. > > > > > > > > I did note that feedburner was not technically doing anything 'wrong' > > > > but its definately an annoyance one resolvable by simply adding the > > > > filename with extension at the end of the url string. why is that not > > > > less acceptable? > > > > > > > > Regardless, I will use http check and hope that most cases actually > > > > have proper header info on the file. no guarantees there but at least > > > > feedburner is doing it right. > > > > > > > > sull > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3/16/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:17:15 +0100, Michael Sullivan > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > ie. http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms.mp4?d=25 > > > > > > via: > > > > > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms > > > > > > > > > > > > This feed doesnt work in FireAnt or any aggregator that currently > > > > > > uses > > > > > > typical file extention detection of media format (since often mime > > > > > > types > > > > > > in > > > > > > feeds are not accurate). > > > > > > > > > > > > Should'nt we get feedburner to modify it so its more > > > > > > cross-compatible > > > > > > (such > > > > > > as ending the url with .ext)? This is annoying and even though not > > > > > > technically wrong to do on feedburner's part, they should have > > > > > taken this > > > > > > issue into consideration before breaking direct media urls like > > > > > > this. I > > > > > > dont want to write new code to handle 'special' direct media url > > > > > > formats. > > > > > > > > > > The file name still has a .mp4 extenstion. The ?id=25 is the query > > > > > string. > > > > > Without knowing for sure I'm guessing that FireANT fails because it > > > > > doesn't follow redirects (the URL responds with a 302 header that > > > > > points > > > > > to the original video URL. > > > > > > > > > > So Feedburner has a correct filename ending in .mp4 and they are even > > > > > sending the correc
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
Josh, i tried it in version 1.0.1.72error message was:fireant was unable to recognize any media files in this enclosure etc... On 3/16/06, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Could you give me a RSS URL that uses this?I have never encountered this issue here. We should still be able todownload the files using that URL convention.-JoshOn 3/16/06, Andreas Haugstrup < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:17:15 +0100, Michael Sullivan> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > ie. http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms.mp4?d=25> > via:> > http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms> >> > This feed doesnt work in FireAnt or any aggregator that currently uses> > typical file extention detection of media format (since often mime types > > in> > feeds are not accurate).> >> > Should'nt we get feedburner to modify it so its more cross-compatible> > (such> > as ending the url with .ext)? This is annoying and even though not > > technically wrong to do on feedburner's part, they should have taken this> > issue into consideration before breaking direct media urls like this. I> > dont want to write new code to handle 'special' direct media url formats. >> The file name still has a .mp4 extenstion. The ?id=25 is the query string.> Without knowing for sure I'm guessing that FireANT fails because it> doesn't follow redirects (the URL responds with a 302 header that points > to the original video URL.>> So Feedburner has a correct filename ending in .mp4 and they are even> sending the correct mime type (video/mp4). If an aggregator doesn't work> with these URLs the aggregator needs to use a proper HTTP library. Setting > up limitations like "video files must have a file extension" and "you> cannot use redirects" are more than a little silly.>> This isn't a case of having to write special software to handle these > special URLs. These are normal URLs and if the software was using HTTP> correctly (following redirects, breaking apart filename from query string> before checking for file extension) there would be no problems. >> --> Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen> http://www.solitude.dk/ >> Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.>> >> Yahoo! Groups LinksYahoo! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/-- Sull http://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
Ideally, aggrigators would correctly recognize what part of the url is a filename and what part is a query string (and correctly follow redirects before bothering with any of that)right, that would be ideal but it can get messy. and if i wanted to display the filename by pulling it out of such a url, in the feedburner case... the filename is fake ( channelname.ext). anyway, i just added quick fix based on mime-type from the RSS.which is another chaotic mess!! totally not reliable.ie. to initiate Quicktime... i'm checking for one of the following: "video/quicktime" "video/mov" "video/mp4v" "video/mp4" "video/x-mp4" "video/x-m4v" "video/m4v" "video/3gpp2" "video/3gpp" "video/mpeg" "video/avi"this is what I use in my vodcast playlist generator which uses SMIL/QT.am I missing any :) where is the best master list of media mime types? At least feeds like spainful films now work -http://vlogdir.com/permalink/1663but i'll try to get http library implemented. know of any good php for this? sullOn 3/16/06, David Meade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 3/16/06, Joshua Kinberg < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Could you give me a RSS URL that uses this? I have never encountered this issue here. We should still be able todownload the files using that URL convention.My feed recently updated to this sytesm: http://www.davidmeade.com/feed On 3/16/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I did note that feedburner was not technically doing anything 'wrong' but its definately an annoyance one resolvable by simply adding the filename with extension at the end of the url string. why is that not less acceptable? Actually ideally both would happen so that all parties are trying to be as widely useable as possible. I guess my thought is having feedburner do this as a fix is less acceptable because it only 'fixes' one feed source (that wasnt really doing anything wrong anyway) ... there are bound to be others and more and more and more in the future. Ideally, aggrigators would correctly recognize what part of the url is a filename and what part is a query string (and correctly follow redirects before bothering with any of that) SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service . -- Sullhttp://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
You're correct. I just tried this feed and got the same error you describe. I thought we were handling this correctly, but I guess we are not. I'll have to add this to the list and hopefully it will be available for the next release in a few weeks. But, as you suggested, I know URLs that end with a query like &type=.mp4 work like a charm.-JoshOn 3/16/06, Michael Sullivan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Josh, i tried it in version 1.0.1.72error message was:fireant was unable to recognize any media files in this enclosure etc... On 3/16/06, Joshua Kinberg < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Could you give me a RSS URL that uses this?I have never encountered this issue here. We should still be able todownload the files using that URL convention.-JoshOn 3/16/06, Andreas Haugstrup < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:17:15 +0100, Michael Sullivan> < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > ie. http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms.mp4?d=25> > via: > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms> >> > This feed doesnt work in FireAnt or any aggregator that currently uses> > typical file extention detection of media format (since often mime types > > in> > feeds are not accurate).> >> > Should'nt we get feedburner to modify it so its more cross-compatible> > (such> > as ending the url with .ext)? This is annoying and even though not > > technically wrong to do on feedburner's part, they should have taken this> > issue into consideration before breaking direct media urls like this. I> > dont want to write new code to handle 'special' direct media url formats. >> The file name still has a .mp4 extenstion. The ?id=25 is the query string.> Without knowing for sure I'm guessing that FireANT fails because it> doesn't follow redirects (the URL responds with a 302 header that points > to the original video URL.>> So Feedburner has a correct filename ending in .mp4 and they are even> sending the correct mime type (video/mp4). If an aggregator doesn't work> with these URLs the aggregator needs to use a proper HTTP library. Setting > up limitations like "video files must have a file extension" and "you> cannot use redirects" are more than a little silly.>> This isn't a case of having to write special software to handle these > special URLs. These are normal URLs and if the software was using HTTP> correctly (following redirects, breaking apart filename from query string> before checking for file extension) there would be no problems. >> --> Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen> http://www.solitude.dk/ >> Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. >> >> Yahoo! Groups LinksYahoo! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -- Sull http://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service . SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
Actually Josh it does download. i saw the error message, but didnt click 'ok' to 'download anyway'. disregard.On 3/16/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Josh, i tried it in version 1.0.1.72error message was:fireant was unable to recognize any media files in this enclosure etc... On 3/16/06, Joshua Kinberg < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Could you give me a RSS URL that uses this?I have never encountered this issue here. We should still be able todownload the files using that URL convention.-JoshOn 3/16/06, Andreas Haugstrup < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:17:15 +0100, Michael Sullivan> < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > ie. http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms.mp4?d=25> > via: > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms> >> > This feed doesnt work in FireAnt or any aggregator that currently uses> > typical file extention detection of media format (since often mime types > > in> > feeds are not accurate).> >> > Should'nt we get feedburner to modify it so its more cross-compatible> > (such> > as ending the url with .ext)? This is annoying and even though not > > technically wrong to do on feedburner's part, they should have taken this> > issue into consideration before breaking direct media urls like this. I> > dont want to write new code to handle 'special' direct media url formats. >> The file name still has a .mp4 extenstion. The ?id=25 is the query string.> Without knowing for sure I'm guessing that FireANT fails because it> doesn't follow redirects (the URL responds with a 302 header that points > to the original video URL.>> So Feedburner has a correct filename ending in .mp4 and they are even> sending the correct mime type (video/mp4). If an aggregator doesn't work> with these URLs the aggregator needs to use a proper HTTP library. Setting > up limitations like "video files must have a file extension" and "you> cannot use redirects" are more than a little silly.>> This isn't a case of having to write special software to handle these > special URLs. These are normal URLs and if the software was using HTTP> correctly (following redirects, breaking apart filename from query string> before checking for file extension) there would be no problems. >> --> Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen> http://www.solitude.dk/ >> Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. >> >> Yahoo! Groups LinksYahoo! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -- Sull http://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org -- Sullhttp://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
yes and no... it downloads if you click "ok" to "download anyway," but then it doesn't play once download has completed. Its definitely an issue on our end.-Josh On 3/16/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Actually Josh it does download. i saw the error message, but didnt click 'ok' to 'download anyway'. disregard. On 3/16/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Josh, i tried it in version 1.0.1.72error message was:fireant was unable to recognize any media files in this enclosure etc... On 3/16/06, Joshua Kinberg < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Could you give me a RSS URL that uses this?I have never encountered this issue here. We should still be able todownload the files using that URL convention.-JoshOn 3/16/06, Andreas Haugstrup < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:17:15 +0100, Michael Sullivan> < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > ie. http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms.mp4?d=25> > via: > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms> >> > This feed doesnt work in FireAnt or any aggregator that currently uses> > typical file extention detection of media format (since often mime types > > in> > feeds are not accurate).> >> > Should'nt we get feedburner to modify it so its more cross-compatible> > (such> > as ending the url with .ext)? This is annoying and even though not > > technically wrong to do on feedburner's part, they should have taken this> > issue into consideration before breaking direct media urls like this. I> > dont want to write new code to handle 'special' direct media url formats. >> The file name still has a .mp4 extenstion. The ?id=25 is the query string.> Without knowing for sure I'm guessing that FireANT fails because it> doesn't follow redirects (the URL responds with a 302 header that points > to the original video URL.>> So Feedburner has a correct filename ending in .mp4 and they are even> sending the correct mime type (video/mp4). If an aggregator doesn't work> with these URLs the aggregator needs to use a proper HTTP library. Setting > up limitations like "video files must have a file extension" and "you> cannot use redirects" are more than a little silly.>> This isn't a case of having to write special software to handle these > special URLs. These are normal URLs and if the software was using HTTP> correctly (following redirects, breaking apart filename from query string> before checking for file extension) there would be no problems. >> --> Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen> http://www.solitude.dk/ >> Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. >> >> Yahoo! Groups LinksYahoo! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -- Sull http://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org -- Sullhttp://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service . SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
Joshua Kinberg wrote: > Just to reiterate... I believe these URLs work as expected in FireAnt. > Please send me an RSS feed that uses this option in Feedburner so I can > double check. Thanks. My feed has always been fine: http://tinkernet.org/feed/ has enclosure links like so: http://tinkernet.org/enclose.cgi/http://www.archive.org/download/Kid_Gymnastics/20060223kidgymnastics.mov use curl -I on that and you get: HTTP/1.1 302 Found Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:53:18 GMT Server: Apache/1.3.31 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.8.20 OpenSSL/0.9.7d mod_perl/1.29 PHP/4.4.1 Location: http://www.archive.org/download/Kid_Gymnastics/20060223kidgymnastics.mov Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 use curl -I on the Location and you get: HTTP/1.1 302 Found Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:53:25 GMT Server: Apache/1.3.33 (Debian GNU/Linux) PHP/5.0.4-0.4 X-Powered-By: PHP/5.0.4-0.4 Location: http://ia300113.us.archive.org/2/items/Kid_Gymnastics/20060223kidgymnastics.mov Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 which sends you the Location of the actual file, which you can then request... use curl -I on the Location and you get: HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:55:32 GMT Server: Apache/1.3.33 (Debian GNU/Linux) PHP/5.0.4-0.7 Last-Modified: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:37:25 GMT ETag: "ee-e7823-43fd9e75" Accept-Ranges: bytes Content-Length: 948259 Content-Type: video/quicktime So FireAnt (and any other http client that does the right thing) should always get it... I could have just as easily used a URL like: http://tinkernet.org/enclose.cgi/1746 but I like my URLs ;) they have the added side-effect of logging each request on my own server, even though the file is stored elsewhere. Pete -- http://tinkernet.org/ videoblog for the future... Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
On 3/16/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: but i'll try to get http library implemented. know of any good php for this? forgive me if this isn't what you were asking for ... but here's some php anyway :-Pcheck out: http://davidmeade.com/resources/enclosure_test.php and put in one of the new feedburner urls.-- http://www.DavidMeade.com SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:11:00 +0100, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > this url is logical and cross-compatible > http://feeds.feedburner.com/ > spainfulfilms?id=25&file=fashion05POD.mp4 Is it? This is an identical URL: http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms?file=fashion05POD.mp4&id=25 Should it always be "file" or should other values be permitted? What are the security implications of identifying a filename via the query string? This is a classic case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". There *is* a standard handling these issues. It's called HTTP, and it's very stable and very well supported. If your library can't handle basic HTTP features like 302 headers and seperating the filename from the query string, you need to get a new library. If you want to find the type of file behind a URL it's an easy three step process: 1. Resolve all redirects (your library should do this for you). 2. Check the "Content-type" header for a mime type. If this is a known video format, great if not... 3. Check the file name. If it ends in .mp4, .m4v or another known troublemaker *and* the content-type is set to "text/plain" assume that it's an mp4. If not assume you're recieving text/plain. Not rocket science. If your HTTP library is faulty then enclosures will be the least of your worries. Fix your library instead of asking the whole wide world to adopt some arbitrary format. There are issues with HTTP, but this ain't one of them. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/ > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:32:42 +0100, David Meade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, on one hand ... > If I were feedburner I probably would have put > &filename=origional_file.mov at the end. Just make sure they werent > going to > break any systems already in place. I agree with you there, it seems a > simple safe guard for backward compatability. It's not a case of backwards compatability. If file names aren't being resolved it's a bug that should be fixed asap. Relying on a query string value corrupts the value of the URL (suddenly the filename is not the filename. The filename is actually an arbutrary query string value). That creates more problems than it solves. > All that being said, yeah I think it would be great if some standard > could > be agreed upon such that enclosure redirects should always end with the > filename ... why not? It's not a question of "why not" it's a question of "why". > Is this something that microformats might be able to provide? No, microformats are HTML based - this is an HTTP issue. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/ > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
i cant argue against that. which is why i have'nt ;-)my focus is on if/how a masked url redirect should be laid out.if the url is a direct media location, i dont think its ludicrous to suggest that the filename reside in the url instead of replacing it with a fake filename format etc. On 3/16/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:11:00 +0100, Michael Sullivan<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> this url is logical and cross-compatible> http://feeds.feedburner.com/> spainfulfilms?id=25&file=fashion05POD.mp4Is it? This is an identical URL:http://feeds.feedburner.com/spainfulfilms?file=fashion05POD.mp4&id=25 Should it always be "file" or should other values be permitted? What arethe security implications of identifying a filename via the query string?This is a classic case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". There *is* a standard handling these issues. It's called HTTP, and it's very stable andvery well supported. If your library can't handle basic HTTP features like302 headers and seperating the filename from the query string, you need to get a new library.If you want to find the type of file behind a URL it's an easy three stepprocess: 1. Resolve all redirects (your library should do this for you). 2. Check the "Content-type" header for a mime type. If this is a known video format, great if not... 3. Check the file name. If it ends in .mp4, .m4v or another knowntroublemaker *and* the content-type is set to "text/plain" assume thatit's an mp4. If not assume you're recieving text/plain. Not rocket science. If your HTTP library is faulty then enclosures will bethe least of your worries. Fix your library instead of asking the wholewide world to adopt some arbitrary format. There are issues with HTTP, but this ain't one of them.--Andreas Haugstrup Pedersenhttp://www.solitude.dk/ >Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/-- Sullhttp://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 04:35:14 +0100, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i cant argue against that. which is why i have'nt ;-) > my focus is on if/how a masked url redirect should be laid out. > if the url is a direct media location, i dont think its ludicrous to > suggest > that the filename reside in the url instead of replacing it with a fake > filename format etc. But that's so contrary to the web. Why should you, I and everyone else spend time and resources trying to solve a problem that doesn't exists? I don't hear any complaints that the URL http://www.solitude.dk/archives/20060310-1630/ doesn't contain a filename. Should I be using http://www.solitude.dk/showentry.php?id=20060310-1630 instead so you can see the filename of the script? I don't get why you want to disallow clean URLs for media files. URLs are arbitrary, that's fundemental to the web. If you want to change that you better have a damn good reason. I haven't heard that reason yet, since you're trying to solve a problem that don't exist. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/ > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
let's step back inside the box for a minute and not look at the big picture that is the web. let's look at media distribution specifically. a link to a video file would be better served if it were not in some cryptic url format that makes zero reference to that video file. this being my opinion from my perception based on logic that I own. so I wont speak to the broad 'non-problem' you are speaking of. because i dont apply this opinion to any arbitrary url only urls to downloadable files beyond native web viewable files it's like this tell me if including the media file name, as i suggest, breaks anything. tell me if it makes a url worse. tell me that it makes no sense to include the file name. tell me something to convince me that this suggestion is illogical without telling me 'its not a problem so why fix it'. because there are many non-problems that are still illogical. again i'll reference iTunes xml channel image tag when RSS already provides it.thats a non-problem that is illogical. so, i am saying... fix the logic, not 'the non-problem'. need i point out again that i do understand that this is not a technical problem?should i state again that i know feedburner, in this example, is not doing anything technically wrong? i know. i know. it still lacks logic. that my complaint. agrue that point if you care to. because the rest of it, i wont argue (again to reiterate). sullOn 3/17/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 04:35:14 +0100, Michael Sullivan<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> i cant argue against that. which is why i have'nt ;-)> my focus is on if/how a masked url redirect should be laid out. > if the url is a direct media location, i dont think its ludicrous to> suggest> that the filename reside in the url instead of replacing it with a fake> filename format etc.But that's so contrary to the web. Why should you, I and everyone else spend time and resources trying to solve a problem that doesn't exists?I don't hear any complaints that the URLhttp://www.solitude.dk/archives/20060310-1630/ doesn't contain a filename.Should I be using http://www.solitude.dk/showentry.php?id=20060310-1630instead so you can see the filename of the script? I don't get why you want to disallow clean URLs for media files.URLs are arbitrary, that's fundemental to the web. If you want to changethat you better have a damn good reason. I haven't heard that reason yet,since you're trying to solve a problem that don't exist. --Andreas Haugstrup Pedersenhttp://www.solitude.dk/ >Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/-- Sullhttp://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:35:35 +0100, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > it's like this tell me if including the media file name, as i > suggest, > breaks anything. tell me if it makes a url worse. tell me that it > makes no > sense to include the file name. tell me something to convince me that > this > suggestion is illogical without telling me 'its not a problem so why fix > it'. You're coming at this from the wrong angle. We have URLs and we have HTTP. Well-defined standards and they have been in use for almost 10 years. You want to change the way the URL work, which breaks backwards compatibility and *I* am supposed to give you more reasons not to go ahead? No, you should give *me* a good reason why redefining the meaning of the URL parts is a good idea. Why should we all spend time implementing this change when the current system has the same capabilities? Why is this change needed? How will it break old webpages? How will differences between the filename part of the URL and the filename given in the query string be handled? The change you're proposing is not simple at all. I still don't know *why* you want this change. Is it because you're having trouble determining mime type? In that case use an HTTP library that follows the same standard as everyone else have been using for the past 10 years - problem solved. No need for the rest of the world to change. In my last mail I listed the 3 step process required to determine a mime type in today's web - it's not a hard thing to do. Or do you have some other reason for proposing the changes? -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/ > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
Here's my take... it would be great if mime-types solved the problem and if the enclosure "type" attribute was always present and always accurate. These things are not true in the wild world of RSS feeds. The best and most consistent indicator of a file type based on what people actually do is the file extension. It certainly would make things easier if the URL contained an extension at the end... even if it doesn't technically require it. Its not very hard to include &type=.mp4 (or similar) at the end of a redirect URL since that URL is completely arbitrary anyway. That said, we're working on a solution to this problem that will be available in the next release of FireAnt for Windows (FireAnt for Mac handles it fine). -Josh On 3/17/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:35:35 +0100, Michael Sullivan > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > it's like this tell me if including the media file name, as i > > suggest, > > breaks anything. tell me if it makes a url worse. tell me that it > > makes no > > sense to include the file name. tell me something to convince me that > > this > > suggestion is illogical without telling me 'its not a problem so why fix > > it'. > > You're coming at this from the wrong angle. > > We have URLs and we have HTTP. Well-defined standards and they have been > in use for almost 10 years. You want to change the way the URL work, which > breaks backwards compatibility and *I* am supposed to give you more > reasons not to go ahead? No, you should give *me* a good reason why > redefining the meaning of the URL parts is a good idea. Why should we all > spend time implementing this change when the current system has the same > capabilities? > > Why is this change needed? > How will it break old webpages? > How will differences between the filename part of the URL and the filename > given in the query string be handled? > > The change you're proposing is not simple at all. I still don't know *why* > you want this change. Is it because you're having trouble determining mime > type? In that case use an HTTP library that follows the same standard as > everyone else have been using for the past 10 years - problem solved. No > need for the rest of the world to change. In my last mail I listed the 3 > step process required to determine a mime type in today's web - it's not a > hard thing to do. Or do you have some other reason for proposing the > changes? > > -- > Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen > http://www.solitude.dk/ > > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
let's just call it a pet peeve of mine.i'm not going to try and convince anyone to structure their urls in a specific way, but I have stated my preference which I think offers more clarity and logic without cryptic format that is more complicated to decipher (as you cant just look at the link and know the filename). all that aside, i will be implementing the more fail-safe http approach to mime detection to precede my current checks which are currently dependent on the RSS item enclosure mime type and the file extension. thanks for sending my that reference library.and thanks for sharing your opinion.sullOn 3/17/06, Andreas Haugstrup < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:35:35 +0100, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> it's like this tell me if including the media file name, as i> suggest,> breaks anything. tell me if it makes a url worse. tell me that it > makes no> sense to include the file name. tell me something to convince me that> this> suggestion is illogical without telling me 'its not a problem so why fix> it'.You're coming at this from the wrong angle. We have URLs and we have HTTP. Well-defined standards and they have beenin use for almost 10 years. You want to change the way the URL work, whichbreaks backwards compatibility and *I* am supposed to give you more reasons not to go ahead? No, you should give *me* a good reason whyredefining the meaning of the URL parts is a good idea. Why should we allspend time implementing this change when the current system has the same capabilities?Why is this change needed?How will it break old webpages?How will differences between the filename part of the URL and the filenamegiven in the query string be handled?The change you're proposing is not simple at all. I still don't know *why* you want this change. Is it because you're having trouble determining mimetype? In that case use an HTTP library that follows the same standard aseveryone else have been using for the past 10 years - problem solved. No need for the rest of the world to change. In my last mail I listed the 3step process required to determine a mime type in today's web - it's not ahard thing to do. Or do you have some other reason for proposing the changes?--Andreas Haugstrup Pedersenhttp://www.solitude.dk/ >Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/-- Sullhttp://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
Michael Sullivan wrote: > let's just call it a pet peeve of mine. > i'm not going to try and convince anyone to structure their urls in a > specific way, but I have stated my preference which I think offers more > clarity and logic without cryptic format that is more complicated to > decipher (as you cant just look at the link and know the filename). You can look at the URL, and *think* you know the file type... What's to prevent: http://example.com/?name=foo&type=mov From being something else, like say, an .exe file perhaps? Pete -- http://tinkernet.org/ videoblog for the future... Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
That could be the case with any URL, whether the file extension is present or not, or whether the mime-type is correct or not. -Josh On 3/17/06, Pete Prodoehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael Sullivan wrote: > > let's just call it a pet peeve of mine. > > i'm not going to try and convince anyone to structure their urls in a > > specific way, but I have stated my preference which I think offers more > > clarity and logic without cryptic format that is more complicated to > > decipher (as you cant just look at the link and know the filename). > > You can look at the URL, and *think* you know the file type... > > What's to prevent: > >http://example.com/?name=foo&type=mov > > From being something else, like say, an .exe file perhaps? > > Pete > > -- > http://tinkernet.org/ > videoblog for the future... > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
c'mon man... ;-)i'm talking within the bounds of trust and generalities here.tinkernet.org could be a link to an .exe. On 3/17/06, Pete Prodoehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Michael Sullivan wrote:> let's just call it a pet peeve of mine.> i'm not going to try and convince anyone to structure their urls in a> specific way, but I have stated my preference which I think offers more > clarity and logic without cryptic format that is more complicated to> decipher (as you cant just look at the link and know the filename).You can look at the URL, and *think* you know the file type... What's to prevent: http://example.com/?name=foo&type=mov From being something else, like say, an .exe file perhaps?Pete --http://tinkernet.org/videoblog for the future...Yahoo! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/-- Sull http://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
Michael Sullivan wrote: > c'mon man... > ;-) > > i'm talking within the bounds of trust and generalities here. > tinkernet.org could be a link to an .exe. Gimme 5 minutes... just kidding. Ok, I was playing devil's advocate a bit. I've learned from years of dealing with this stuff: You can't trust the file extension. You can't trust the mime-type. Sometimes it's a mis-configured server, sometimes it's a clueless user, sometimes is malicious. (Usually the first two.) Pete -- http://tinkernet.org/ videoblog for the future... Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
Okay, but what does appending the file type as a query string help? As far as I can tell it only break stuff because people use your pop-up link generator which has links like http://www.michaelverdi.com/popup.php?url=http://michaelverdi.com/video/dresscode.mov > that are not media links, but links to HTML pages. Here's the deal: - Most people will just have the file name. Normal procedures can be followed (first HTTP header, then filename and if content-type is text/plain and filename is .mp4 it's probably a misconfigured server and MP¤ should be assumed) - Some people will use query strings. This is usually serverside script pushing out the file. If there is a filename it can't be trusted. The content-type HTTP header can be trusted because people who are clever enough to pipe videos through a script are clever enough to have the script send the correct content-type header. - Feedburner already has the file extension correct (.mp4) in their enclosures. As long as the URL is seperated into approciate parts before parsing this is a non-issue. So what's the point in adding new arguments to the query string? As far as I can tell this thing was proposed because of a faulty script that didn't parse URLs for the filename properly. Call me a weirdo, but I prefer fixing that one script instead of forcing those of us who want to pipe stuff trough scripts to write URLs a certain way. And I'll shut up now. Promise. - Andreas On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:44:21 +0100, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's my take... it would be great if mime-types solved the problem > and if the enclosure "type" attribute was always present and always > accurate. These things are not true in the wild world of RSS feeds. > The best and most consistent indicator of a file type based on what > people actually do is the file extension. It certainly would make > things easier if the URL contained an extension at the end... even if > it doesn't technically require it. Its not very hard to include > &type=.mp4 (or similar) at the end of a redirect URL since that URL is > completely arbitrary anyway. > > That said, we're working on a solution to this problem that will be > available in the next release of FireAnt for Windows (FireAnt for Mac > handles it fine). > > -Josh > > > On 3/17/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:35:35 +0100, Michael Sullivan >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > it's like this tell me if including the media file name, as i >> > suggest, >> > breaks anything. tell me if it makes a url worse. tell me that it >> > makes no >> > sense to include the file name. tell me something to convince me that >> > this >> > suggestion is illogical without telling me 'its not a problem so why >> fix >> > it'. >> >> You're coming at this from the wrong angle. >> >> We have URLs and we have HTTP. Well-defined standards and they have been >> in use for almost 10 years. You want to change the way the URL work, >> which >> breaks backwards compatibility and *I* am supposed to give you more >> reasons not to go ahead? No, you should give *me* a good reason why >> redefining the meaning of the URL parts is a good idea. Why should we >> all >> spend time implementing this change when the current system has the same >> capabilities? >> >> Why is this change needed? >> How will it break old webpages? >> How will differences between the filename part of the URL and the >> filename >> given in the query string be handled? >> >> The change you're proposing is not simple at all. I still don't know >> *why* >> you want this change. Is it because you're having trouble determining >> mime >> type? In that case use an HTTP library that follows the same standard as >> everyone else have been using for the past 10 years - problem solved. No >> need for the rest of the world to change. In my last mail I listed the 3 >> step process required to determine a mime type in today's web - it's >> not a >> hard thing to do. Or do you have some other reason for proposing the >> changes? >> >> -- >> Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen >> http://www.solitude.dk/ > >> Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. >> >> >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/ > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] feedburner media urls with ?d=
> Okay, but what does appending the file type as a query string help? As far > as I can tell it only break stuff because people use your pop-up link > generator which has links like http://www.michaelverdi.com/popup.php?url=http://michaelverdi.com/video/dresscode.mov > > that are not media links, but links to HTML pages. Nope.. this is why I created the popup link generator thingie. It uses the popup URL for the onclick handler, but the href attribute is still the direct link to the media file and that direct link is what gets enclosed in the RSS feed. But this has little to do with the conversation here... -Josh On 3/17/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Okay, but what does appending the file type as a query string help? As far > as I can tell it only break stuff because people use your pop-up link > generator which has links like http://www.michaelverdi.com/popup.php?url=http://michaelverdi.com/video/dresscode.mov > > that are not media links, but links to HTML pages. > > Here's the deal: > > - Most people will just have the file name. Normal procedures can be > followed (first HTTP header, then filename and if content-type is > text/plain and filename is .mp4 it's probably a misconfigured server and > MP¤ should be assumed) > > - Some people will use query strings. This is usually serverside script > pushing out the file. If there is a filename it can't be trusted. The > content-type HTTP header can be trusted because people who are clever > enough to pipe videos through a script are clever enough to have the > script send the correct content-type header. > > - Feedburner already has the file extension correct (.mp4) in their > enclosures. As long as the URL is seperated into approciate parts before > parsing this is a non-issue. > > So what's the point in adding new arguments to the query string? As far as > I can tell this thing was proposed because of a faulty script that didn't > parse URLs for the filename properly. Call me a weirdo, but I prefer > fixing that one script instead of forcing those of us who want to pipe > stuff trough scripts to write URLs a certain way. > > And I'll shut up now. Promise. > > - Andreas > > On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:44:21 +0100, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Here's my take... it would be great if mime-types solved the problem > > and if the enclosure "type" attribute was always present and always > > accurate. These things are not true in the wild world of RSS feeds. > > The best and most consistent indicator of a file type based on what > > people actually do is the file extension. It certainly would make > > things easier if the URL contained an extension at the end... even if > > it doesn't technically require it. Its not very hard to include > > &type=.mp4 (or similar) at the end of a redirect URL since that URL is > > completely arbitrary anyway. > > > > That said, we're working on a solution to this problem that will be > > available in the next release of FireAnt for Windows (FireAnt for Mac > > handles it fine). > > > > -Josh > > > > > > On 3/17/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:35:35 +0100, Michael Sullivan > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > it's like this tell me if including the media file name, as i > >> > suggest, > >> > breaks anything. tell me if it makes a url worse. tell me that it > >> > makes no > >> > sense to include the file name. tell me something to convince me that > >> > this > >> > suggestion is illogical without telling me 'its not a problem so why > >> fix > >> > it'. > >> > >> You're coming at this from the wrong angle. > >> > >> We have URLs and we have HTTP. Well-defined standards and they have been > >> in use for almost 10 years. You want to change the way the URL work, > >> which > >> breaks backwards compatibility and *I* am supposed to give you more > >> reasons not to go ahead? No, you should give *me* a good reason why > >> redefining the meaning of the URL parts is a good idea. Why should we > >> all > >> spend time implementing this change when the current system has the same > >> capabilities? > >> > >> Why is this change needed? > >> How will it break old webpages? > >> How will differences between the filename part of the URL and the > >> filename > >> given in the query string be handled? > >> > >> The change you're proposing is not simple at all. I still don't know > >> *why* > >> you want this change. Is it because you're having trouble determining > >> mime > >> type? In that case use an HTTP library that follows the same standard as > >> everyone else have been using for the past 10 years - problem solved. No > >> need for the rest of the world to change. In my last mail I listed the 3 > >> step process required to determine a mime type in today's web - it's > >> not a > >> hard thing to do. Or do you have some other reason for proposing the > >> changes? > >> > >> -- > >> Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen > >> http://www.
