On Wednesday, June 01, 2005, at 16:30, Rowan Collins rowan.collins@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/06/05, James D. Forrester james@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 :-)).
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".
Transclusion is the taking of the content of another page and displaying it, umm, inline. No? :-)
Yes, there is a bit of a mess between linking to the item and its description, and [[:Image:Foo]] handles this, but a plain link is much simpler.
Yours,