On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 07:04:20PM +0200, Martin Vahi wrote: Hi there,
I am not related to the fossil project, so don't take this as any way official. > I know that the way to embed an image is by > >  > > but it does not seem to work with the WebM videos. It is probably worth being very clear about what you are seeing and wanting. The above syntax is (according to https://www.fossil-scm.org/xfer/md_rules) a way of including in-line images within markdown-formatted pages. When you say "it does not seem to work", do you mean "it does not become "img src=" in the output html"; or "it does become "img src=" in the output html, but I want it to become something else instead"? I suspect that the answer is the latter, which means that it *does* work as it is designed to. What you (presumably) want is for some markdown syntax that will become "video src=" in the output html, possibly with some extra words included. It would probably be good if you can specific exactly what output-html you want, in order to avoid any unnecessary guessing. Rather than the fossil-project making up its own markdown syntax for embedded videos, can you point to a description of the markdown syntax that is already well-known for embedding videos? That might inspire someone who is interested to write the code to implement things. Note that I can see, for example, https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/user/markdown.md#videos which says """ Image tags with a video extension are automatically converted to a video player. The valid video extensions are .mp4, .m4v, .mov, .webm, and .ogv. """ (personally, I think that "match the extension" is the wrong thing to do; but I'm neither designing the spec nor intending to write the implementation, so my opinion is less important) and which converts the markdown-input """  """ into the html-output """ <div class="video-container"> <video data-flashblockwhitelisted="true" src="/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/raw/master/doc/user/img/markdown_video.mp4" controls="true" data-setup="{}" data-title="Sample Video" width="400"></video><p><a href="/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/raw/master/doc/user/img/markdown_video.mp4" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" title="Download 'Sample Video'">Sample Video</a></p> </div> """ when I look at it. Is that "the" authoritative source for markdown-for-video? Is "exactly that list of five extensions" the thing that fossil should deal with? Note that currently (I think) the fossil markdown-parser does not try to interpret what you write inside the () -- it is a string which is html-escaped before being written. Perhaps it would be better to have different markdown syntax for video, so that the markdown-parser could continue not to care about the content of the (); and could also allow any future video format to be handled seamlessly. Is there another markdown-family that has addressed video before now? What syntax did they use? As I understand it, if the browser sees "<video" in the html, then it will Do The Right Thing, without any special server-side handling (although I guess that special server-side handling, at least Range requests, would be necessary for "only downloading the last part of the video"). So what you want is a way to get "<video" into the output html. That way does not appear to exist within fossil-markdown right now. Before it does exist, there will be a specification of what the requirements are. That specification should come from someone who cares about the feature -- they don't need to write the code, but they do need to be able to convince others that that feature is useful, and that the specification is sensible, and that the implementation matches the specification. > The lack > of WebM video support seems to be something that > I seem to stumble upon repeatedly. I suggest that the best "next step" is for you to define your desired input-to-output mappings, ideally with reference to places that have considered doing the same thing before now. If there were syntaxes that were rejected, it would be good to know why. If there were syntaxes that were accepted, it would be good to see how well they work in practice. Without thinking much about it, perhaps !![]() would be suitable for a video element -- it resembles the current image element of ![](), but is different enough that one will not be confused for the other. (But perhaps that breaks something else in the markdown-syntax-rules. Who knows?) Good luck with it. If no-one cares to write the code, then it cannot be integrated. If no-one cares to write the spec, then it is unlikely that someone will be convinced to write the code. f -- Francis Daly fran...@daoine.org _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
