Home > All Posts > Individual Post
Post #1528

Re: [videoblogging] vogfeed

By Andreas Haugstrup | "Andreas Haugstrup" <videoblog@...> | andreashaugstrup
October 27, 2004 | Post #1528 | Topic #1469

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:02:19 -0700, M. Sean Gilligan <seanlist@...> wrote: > I'd like to help on this. I've been quiet on this issue because I'm > still learning the background information, but I'm really interested in > implementing enclosures for vBlog Central (http://www.vblogcentral.com). That sound great. You're the guy who can get this stuff out to the masses. > My thoughts are that we should define (or find an existing) set of tags > that can list all the available formats the video is available in. The > tags could either be directly in the feed, or could be in a separate XML > document. Something like this: > > <medialink type="video/quicktime" bitrate="384" width="320" height="240" > href="blah"> I could go with some clarification. Are you talking strictly syndication? In that case the current enclosures in RSS handles things just fine in my opinion... It handles file size and content-type. If you're talking information in the HTML-part of a blog entry you've got it all. Different versions can be linked with rel="alternate". Eg. <link rel="alternate" type="video/quicktime" href="qt.mov" /> <link rel="alternate" type="video/mp4" href="mpeg.mp4" /> And so on. CC License will also be linked like this: <link rel="license" href="linktocclicense" /> or <link rel="copyright" href="linktolicense" /> > There is really no end to the amount of metadata about a movie that > could be useful: Language of the audio track(s), content rating, etc. Again are you talking about inventing a new syndication format or are you talking about pulling info from the blog-entry? Because we can handle language just fine in HTML. :o) <a rel="enclosure" href="movie-english.mov" hreflang="en">English version</a> <a rel="enclosure" href="movie-danish.mov" hreflang="da">Danish version</a> > There are probably at least 10 "standards" in this area we can choose > from -- or we could define our own. HTML goes a long way - unless you're talking syndication. HTML is not good for syndication. It's great for saving hypertext though. :o) If it comes to inventing a new syndication format - something I don't think is necessary, in my world the metadata should be embedded directly in the movie file not in a wrapper - I'd look to extending RSS 2.0. Mostly I don't see what RSS+enclosures is lacking on the syndication front. > If the pointy-brackets start taking over this list, we could start a new > list for this topic. Shouldn't that have been: if (pointyBrackets == TRUE) { createNewList(); } > Lucas was annoyed that he couldn't parse out the video links because of > the Javascript tag. I cursed that javascript for a long time when I started on the pingback client. There's just no way to parse that javascript without it turning nasty (it has made it very easy for the user - I will give you that!). :o) I would like it very much if the blog post contained some sensible HTML instead. I'm not a javascript-expert by any means, but would it be possible to add some good HTML into the blog post (link <a>-elements with rel="enclosure" or rel="alternate") and then use javascript to read the DOM-three and get movie-version information from the blog post HTML itself. Like if you have javascript turned off you'd get a list of links to different versions (rel="enclosure" should of course be used if that's more appropriate for the individual post): <ul id="movielist-id73624783264> <li><a href="qt.mov" rel="alternate">Quicktime version</a></li> <li><a href="mpeg.mp4" rel="alternate">MPEG 4 version</a></li> <li><a href="qt-da.mov" rel="alternate" hreflang="da">Quicktime version (Danish soundtrack)</a></li> </ul> With javascript turned on this list would be made invisible and instead the movie window will be displayed as it is now (it's very easy to use right now, but very hard to parse). That way scripts and software could easily parse the HTML blog post for video information because they wouldn't execute the javascript. There would be no difference for the user, but a huge advantage for software (like my pingback client, RSS feed creators and so on). - Andreas -- <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/&gt; Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.