Re: Video syntax

2010-09-15 Thread David Chambers
On 16 September 2010 13:32, Waylan Limberg wrote: An interesting thought just occurred to be when re-reading this. Why do you > need any special syntax at all? Why not just: >[Soda Pop Stop](http://www.youtube.com/v/gPbh6Ru7VVM ) > Just parse the urls for "youtube.com" (or "vimeo" etc) an

Re: Video syntax

2010-09-15 Thread Waylan Limberg
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Waylan Limberg wrote: > While I realize youtube can be extracted from parsing the url, by An interesting thought just occurred to be when re-reading this. Why do you need any special syntax at all? Why not just: [Soda Pop Stop](http://www.youtube.com/v/gPbh6R

Re: Video syntax

2010-09-15 Thread Waylan Limberg
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:47 PM, David Chambers wrote: > Of course, this markup applies to YouTube but may not apply to other > services. That being the case, though, I'd still benefit from a `youtube:` > solution since 80% or more of the videos I embed are YouTube videos. The > fact that I'd need

Re: Video syntax

2010-09-15 Thread Evan
Could either of the following be useful as the markup generated by the video tag? http://camendesign.com/code/video_for_everybody http://www.mediafront.org/project/osmplayer E. ___ Markdown-Discuss mailing list Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net http

Re: Video syntax

2010-09-15 Thread David Chambers
On 16 September 2010 05:33, Waylan Limberg wrote: The fact is, when I go back up and reread this message and get to the source > tag, all I see is ` video which gets inserted in the document" and I skip to the next block. It > doesn't really make reading the document any more painful or difficul

Re: Video syntax

2010-09-15 Thread david parsons
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 01:33:49AM +1200, David Chambers wrote: > I'm planning to update Mango to facilitate adding > video to Markdown documents. At the moment, of course, it's possible to > include video by including the appropriate HTML. There are three reasons, > though,

Re: Video syntax

2010-09-15 Thread Albert Skye
> Clearly one option is to use the same syntax as for images but with > an extra `!`, but what would we use for audio in that case? `!!!` > would be ridiculous. No need for more syntax. Overload image syntax instead; i.e., insert resource at URL here. ___

Re: Video syntax

2010-09-15 Thread Waylan Limberg
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:33 AM, David Chambers wrote: > My question is, has anyone given thought to an appropriate syntax for video > in Markdown? We're a long way (five years, at least) from being at the point > where `` will be sufficient to get the > job done, so this probably isn't something

Re: Video syntax

2010-09-15 Thread Vinay Augustine
> Currently, we have: > [link text](/path/to/link) for links, and > ![alt text](/path/to/image) for images. What about a URI-like handler? ![alt text](video:/path/to/video) ![alt text](audio:/path/to/audio) ![alt text](image:/path/to/image) ![alt text](/path/to/image) The downsid

Video syntax

2010-09-15 Thread David Chambers
I'm planning to update Mango to facilitate adding video to Markdown documents. At the moment, of course, it's possible to include video by including the appropriate HTML. There are three reasons, though, that having syntax (official or unofficial) for video is a good idea: