Rowan Collins | 1 Jun 17:30 2005
Picon

Re: Re: Re: Intended changes to namespace management

On 01/06/05, James D. Forrester <james <at> jdforrester.org> wrote:
> Hmm. If you link to a sound-file with {{Image:}} (or {{Sound:}} you'd want
> to transclude it, even if the software won't let you. [[Sound:]] would then
> be a link to the sound, and the overall manner of links would make more
> sense.

Sorry, I don't follow what you're saying here - are you saying that
"transcluding a sound" *is* the same as displaying a specially
formatted set of links/player, or that it isn't? Like I say, I can see
how "transcluding an image" could mean displaying it inline, but I'm
not sure that "transcluding a sound" is really a meaningful concept.
At the moment, you can transclude the *description page*, but I don't
think anyone would really miss that ability.

Don't get me wrong, I can see the argument for having a different
syntax for "display inline" than for "link to", I'm just not 100%
convinced that this is logically the same as "transclude from".

--

-- 
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]
James D. Forrester | 1 Jun 17:56 2005

Re: Re: Re: Intended changes to namespace management

On Wednesday, June 01, 2005, at 16:30, Rowan Collins
<rowan.collins <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> On 01/06/05, James D. Forrester <james <at> jdforrester.org> wrote:
> > Hmm. If you link to a sound-file with {{Image:}} (or {{Sound:}} you'd
> > want to transclude it, even if the software won't let you. [[Sound:]]
> > would then be a link to the sound, and the overall manner of links
> > would make more sense.
> 
> Sorry, I don't follow what you're saying here - are you saying that
> "transcluding a sound" *is* the same as displaying a specially
> formatted set of links/player, or that it isn't? Like I say, I can see
> how "transcluding an image" could mean displaying it inline, but I'm
> not sure that "transcluding a sound" is really a meaningful concept.
> At the moment, you can transclude the *description page*, but I don't
> think anyone would really miss that ability.

In short: I'm agreeing with you. :-)

We could do without {{Image:Foo}} importing the description content of media
file Foo, and instead use it as a transclusion mechanism for the image. Then
[[Image:Foo]] would be a link to the image, the syntax would suddenly make a
lot more sense, and there would be happy children frollicking in the fields
and all that.

I also agreed with you that having {{Sound:Foo}} would only make sense if
you could in some way transclude the audio file Foo; for that to be useful
one would need, as you say, some form of special format or inline player.
Which would be fun (but obviously isn't a major feature request yet :-)).

(Continue reading)


Gmane