Video syntax

[David Chambers]

On 16 September 2010 21:10, Allan Odgaard wrote:

There is a difference between a link and an embedded object.



> Presently we have `[…](…)` for links and `![…](…)` for embedded objects

> (limited to images).




> I therefor not only think it would be more appropriate to use the `![…](…)`

> syntax for embedding video/audio, but by using the `[…](…)` syntax with

> auto-detection, you make it impossible for users to link to the resource

> (rather than embed it).



You make two very good points, Allan. Regarding the first – that it's useful
to maintain a clear syntactic distinction between links and embedded objects
– I agree in principle. The drawback of such an approach, however, is that
it necessitates the use of syntax which will be incorrectly interpreted by
all existing Markdown implementations. If we were to use the image syntax,
for example, a standard Markdown processor would produce *image* markup.
Were we to use a slightly modified version of the image syntax to avoid this
incorrect interpretation, a standard Markdown processor would likely leave
the input unchanged.

The nice thing about using standard link syntax is that the fallback is a
descriptive link – completely acceptable in my opinion. A trade-off exists
between semantically-correct syntax and interoperability. The side of the
divide on which one stands depends on how highly one values each of these
concerns.

I believe that your second point – that it needs to remain possible to *link
to* a video – is more easily solved. *Links* to videos will almost always
appear inline within a body of text; embedded videos, on the other hand,
will not. I'll provide two examples to illustrate my point.


*Example 1*

You must check out [Soda Pop Stop][1]. It's a short documentary about a
store in LA which sells nothing but soda.

[1]: http://www.youtube.com/v/gPbh6Ru7VVM


*Example 2*

# Soda Pop Stop

A short documentary about a store in LA which sells nothing but soda.

[Soda Pop Stop][1]

[1]: http://www.youtube.com/v/gPbh6Ru7VVM


I would expect the first to be converted to a link and the second to be
converted to embedding markup (by Mango) or to a link (by standard Markdown
processors). Distinguishing between the two cases using a regular expression
is straightforward. If one *wanted* to include a link to a video on its own
line, one could simply add a full stop (.) at the end of the line. Things
get a bit murky when one considers the possibility of allowing embedded
video within other elements (such as lists and blockquotes), so initially I
plan to insert embedding markup only in the straightforward situation
demonstrated above.


On 16 September 2010 21:10, Allan Odgaard <
1EDF4D33-D1B1-4C97-A393-3D2B4EE5E095+Markdown at uuid-mail.com<1EDF4D33-D1B1-4C97-A393-3D2B4EE5E095%2BMarkdown at uuid-mail.com>

> wrote:



> On 16 Sep 2010, at 03:32, Waylan Limberg wrote:

>

>  […] Just parse the urls for "youtube.com" (or "vimeo" etc) and when

>> found, convert to an appropriate object. It's easy, simple and introduces no

>> new syntax of any kind.

>>

>

> There is a difference between a link and an embedded object.

>

> Presently we have `[…](…)` for links and `![…](…)` for embedded objects

> (limited to images).

>

> I therefor not only think it would be more appropriate to use the `![…](…)`

> syntax for embedding video/audio, but by using the `[…](…)` syntax with

> auto-detection, you make it impossible for users to link to the resource

> (rather than embed it).

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> Markdown-Discuss mailing list

> Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/markdown-discuss/attachments/20100916/692a71a6/attachment-0001.htm>