There won’t be a limitation to one video. Personally I see this limitation weird - we have to give user wider possibilities and not restrict him.
Ok, now we have a block. If I understand the process of voting correctly, this means, it wouldn’t pass. What should we do now? Shut the voting and conduct a new one?
Sorry for the mess. I’m doing it all for the first time.
It would be better to actually discuss Augier’s points about incompatibility and alternative ideas for syntax, and see if a decent compormise can be found before starting a new proposal.
The only decent decision is to wait for CommonMark to adopt a standard. Every other option is an attempt to guess the future.
No, this proposal would mean that would embed in place content, not create a link to it, like happens now.
Try providing a link to e.g. a YouTube video using []() syntax - it’ll embed it. This already happens with a number of sites.
If you mean that embedded content will in future be displayed at the exact point in the post at which the link was entered, I didn’t see anything in the proposal specifying that.
This proposal is not to discuss a place for the embed. The code is
written already, and it embeds in-place.
This proposal is to discuss a syntax for that to happen.
Hey guys!
While some of you are in Paris together, maybe you find time to discuss the matter live? That can be productive.
This proposal is not to discuss a place for the embed. The code is written already, and it embeds in-place.
The embed in-place is a bit of a blocker for using the link concept. This will really break posts where the user only wants to link, not embed. Sorry, I feel this is a bad way to go forward.
Proposal: Implement two syntax types with a different effect
Since we have a discussion concerning a place for an embed, I’d like to suggest the following.
How about implementing both syntax types simultaneously, but make them produce a different effect?
If a user use the link syntax [](), then we embed in the way it does with youtube - to the end of the post. If the image syntax ![]() is used, then we embed it in-place, like we do for images.
I remind you, that CommonMark still don’t have any standards about html5 media embedding, so an alternative for this proposal is to wait while they release a standard.
Outcome: Not accepted
Votes:
- Yes: 4
- Abstain: 2
- No: 4
- Block: 0
Note: This proposal was imported from Loomio. Vote details, some comments and metadata were not imported. Click here to view the proposal with all details on Loomio.
Why not make a simple proposal about whether to embed in place or the first one at the end?
Why not make a simple proposal about whether to embed in place or the first one at the end?
++
Hmm no actually I think this makes sense, kinda. Youtube type of embed at end of post should be done whenever a link is posted to the resource, be it either plain paste of link or the link format [](). And for embedding in place, ![]() should be the format for whatever embed in place, be it images, video etc.
This is how things work now, except it would be nice to also embed the first image of the post to the message if it is not using the embed syntax, just not in place. This is how for example Facebook works (except they don’t support embed in place).
One might even consider completely dropping the automatic embeds at the end of a post. Instead users could define themselves, which content should be embedded and where it should be displayed: via Markdown if we embed in place. This would of course mean that we use some syntax which is different from the link syntax.
Someone mentioned
@[]() for audio embeds and
^[]() for video embeds here.
I am not saying that we should definitely adopt this (haven’t decided on my favorite proposal yet) but I wanted to drop this here as another possible syntax.
@trekkie we’re discussing the “regular user” vs “markdown” problem in the thread about the publisher, and we will solve it don’t worry, let’s not discuss about that here and stay in topic 
So, instead of guessing, what about being involved in common-mark and try to take a decision with everybody there?
One might even consider completely dropping the automatic embeds at the end of a post.
All of them? Including website abstracts and YT embeds?
So, instead of guessing, what about being involved in common-mark and try to take a decision with everybody there?
Yep, this is a goo idea.
Just add it to the end of the post like Youtube - no proposal needed for that imho since it doesn’t break any existing posts. Once CommonMark agrees on a standard we could embrace that then.
Well, I don’t like the idea of embedding in the end of the post at all, but that wouldn’t be such a big problem if it didn’t require full reimplementation of 6418.
I read all the comments (pfiou!).
To me, there are two distinct ways to embed a media:
- Interpret the first link (raw or
[]()) and embed the media at the end of the post. This is what FB, G+ and Twitter do - Use a specific syntax saying that you want to embed something (could be
![](), but I’ve got some concerns about that, see below). Being able to choose where to embed media in the post is a unique and useful feature D*
I don’t think []() should be used to choose where to embed media. So, that would be a no for me.
About the ![]() syntax, that would be extremely cool that one syntax could regroup all the embedded media types, but that depends on one big condition: is it possible/wanted to detect the media type dynamically?
If we decide to use a common syntax for all the media types (image, audio, video), it seems to break the principle of the Markdown syntax: one statement = one HTML tag. Here we would have one statement that could be translated into either , or . Is it even possible?