Hoi, I have been working really hard checking the 4800 words that are in nl:wiktionary and converting them to undercase when needed. This is a big task because the nl:wiktionary has grown quite a lot. I am thankfull that we have to do this now and not a few thousand words later. As I got bored and wanted to do something else as well, I have created a soundfile called nl-Nederlands.ogg. I created this using Audacity which was recommended to me (thanks :) ).
Audacity saved it for me as an ogg file and I have uploaded it to nl:wiktionary. To my amazement, it identified itself as *afbeelding:nl-Nederlands.ogg* (afbeelding means image). I expected that I would be able to hear it, but I get a message telling me that the operating system does not know what to do with the format. I installed the real player it does not know what to do with it, I tried the Windows thingie, same fiasco.
I had a look at META to see if I could find anything about .ogg files; nothing. So, I had to be "adventurous" (I hate being adventurous) and found that a Media player called "Ashampoo" could do the trick where the conventional stuff fails miserably. It does indeed not only play ogg files.
The listening part of the file in wiktionary is a joke. It does say Afbeelding:nl-Nederlands.ogg http://nl.wiktionary.org/wiki/Afbeelding:nl-Nederlands.ogg and when you click it, you get a details screen while I expect to hear something, On this screen it is not immediately obvious what to do but there is an nl-Nederlands.ogg It http://nl.wiktionary.org/wiki/Afbeelding:nl-Nederlands.ogg text. When you press this, you finally get to hear a word; the pronounciation of "Nederlands" spoken by me.
The reason why I use so many words is, because .ogg files are the recommended sound files. I expect that when you select one it will not say image but *sound*, and when I press it, that it will try to let me hear something. After this I wanted to check what it does with .wav files but, they are not allowed anymore :(
An other issue is that sound files are worthwhile resources for wiktionaries; how better to demonstrate pronounciation ?? When a naming convention is used like xx-word where xx is the ISO 639 code and word, well the word, you will get thousands of files. It would be really good if COMMONS was the place where these sound files are uploaded to.
Questions: * How can I make the .ogg file execute immediately (without a detail screen) ? *When can I upload sound files to COMMONS so that every wiktionary can share this and similar resources ? http://nl.wiktionary.org/wiki/Afbeelding:nl-Nederlands.ogg* What can we do to make it easier for people to use .ogg ? Having loads of them helps as well !!
Thanks, GerardM
Brion Vibber wrote:
On Sep 25, 2004, at 2:45 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
- How can I make the .ogg file execute immediately (without a detail
screen) ?
[[media:foobar.ogg]]
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Thanks, :) GerardM
On 25 Sep 2004, at 23:45, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
<snip interesting ogg-related stuff>
Gerard -- Apologies in case I'm not telling you anything new.
IMHO the story of the .ogg sound format qualifies as a classical Greek tragedy. Maybe it will get better in the future, but at present it's best described as [[snafu]].
The .ogg sound format was a very noble attempt -- driven by the desire to create an entirely free, high performance audio codec. (MP3 by comparison is not at all free as there are patents/license fees to the Fraunhofer institute involved.) The problem is that many months and years on, about all mainstream audio players still don't friggin support .ogg -- so well over 90% of desktop users don't do .ogg, don't know .ogg and can't be 4rsed to learn about .ogg.
The situation may improve as there is a plugin available (not installed by default) that can make QuickTime play .ogg and Real have started to embrace .ogg. Also, it's possible that the main codec pushers locking horns over Real, WMA and AAC coupled with the public's distaste for getting DRM LindaLovelaced on them may help .ogg adoption.
But let's face it: it doesn't look too good so far and -- call me a gutless turncoat if you must -- I'll switch over to ogg when there is actual music available in it. Try googling for an ogg file. See what I mean? You'd likely find that you have to use a P2P program (which many users don't even know much about and are scared away from using thanks to RIAA FUD) to actually *FIND* ogg files on the 'Net.
For these above reasons, I say IF we keep insisting on "ogg only" (and I really doubt that that's a good idea), again IF we insist on "ogg only", then AT LEAST we should make it VERY clear and painfully obvious to our users how to get these bleedin ogg thingies to play:
SHORT, SIMPLE and SUFFICIENT links and help pages, w/ a link to only ONE player per platform -- the most user friendly one. (cf. Buridan's ass: http://www.cenius.net/refer/display.php?ArticleID=buridansass (yeah, I should have improved our WP article, which is shite, but I could not be 4rsed (no pun intended)))
(NB: People are becoming less and less ready to install a plugin "just for one website". Sometimes not even ABLE to install, as w/ desktop lockdowns in a corporate environment.)
Then again, as we're not actually in the business of writing audio encoding software, we might just as well put up with reality and allow mp3 uploads.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 08:24:56 +0200, Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
On 25 Sep 2004, at 23:45, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
<snip interesting ogg-related stuff>
Gerard -- Apologies in case I'm not telling you anything new.
IMHO the story of the .ogg sound format qualifies as a classical Greek tragedy. Maybe it will get better in the future, but at present it's best described as [[snafu]].
The .ogg sound format was a very noble attempt -- driven by the desire to create an entirely free, high performance audio codec. (MP3 by comparison is not at all free as there are patents/license fees to the Fraunhofer institute involved.) The problem is that many months and years on, about all mainstream audio players still don't friggin support .ogg -- so well over 90% of desktop users don't do .ogg, don't know .ogg and can't be 4rsed to learn about .ogg.
The situation may improve as there is a plugin available (not installed by default) that can make QuickTime play .ogg and Real have started to embrace .ogg. Also, it's possible that the main codec pushers locking horns over Real, WMA and AAC coupled with the public's distaste for getting DRM LindaLovelaced on them may help .ogg adoption.
But let's face it: it doesn't look too good so far and -- call me a gutless turncoat if you must -- I'll switch over to ogg when there is actual music available in it. Try googling for an ogg file. See what I mean? You'd likely find that you have to use a P2P program (which many users don't even know much about and are scared away from using thanks to RIAA FUD) to actually *FIND* ogg files on the 'Net.
It appers you havent even tried doing so yourself: http://www.google.com/search?q=http+filetype%3Aogg
For these above reasons, I say IF we keep insisting on "ogg only" (and I really doubt that that's a good idea), again IF we insist on "ogg only", then AT LEAST we should make it VERY clear and painfully obvious to our users how to get these bleedin ogg thingies to play:
SHORT, SIMPLE and SUFFICIENT links and help pages, w/ a link to only ONE player per platform -- the most user friendly one. (cf. Buridan's ass: http://www.cenius.net/refer/display.php?ArticleID=buridansass (yeah, I should have improved our WP article, which is shite, but I could not be 4rsed (no pun intended)))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sound <- we have that.
(NB: People are becoming less and less ready to install a plugin "just for one website". Sometimes not even ABLE to install, as w/ desktop lockdowns in a corporate environment.)
Then again, as we're not actually in the business of writing audio encoding software, we might just as well put up with reality and allow mp3 uploads.
This has already been discussed at great length both on wikien and on wikipedia talk:sound, and the overwhelming consensus was not to use none-free formats which would possibly lock us into proprietery software.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote on wikitech-l:
This has already been discussed at great length both on wikien and on wikipedia talk:sound, and the overwhelming consensus was not to use none-free formats which would possibly lock us into proprietery software.
It is nice to see that things are discussed on wikien and on wikipedia, it is also nice that some sort of consensus was reached. I hope you can agree with me on two points.
* Not everyone discusses on wikien and en:wikipedia. * If such a consensus does not result in some good explanations on how to use .ogg files it is empty talk.
I care little for people's opinion when they do not back it up with walking their talk. When people are to use .ogg in stead of .wav files or whatever, I expect that it must be simple to use this format. When it is not, it is astounding that I fail to find an "howto use sound" in wikipedia. Apparently the great moral issues are more important than the practicalities.
I really appreciate it when a message can be as informative as "use media". Thanks again Brion :).
I am aware that Jimbo does want us to use .ogg files that is why I went this route. The reasons why are good enough for ME. But I think the explantions in wikimedia on how and why we use .ogg files really suck. I also think that we can do better. When we are going to upload thousants of pronounciations using .ogg files, we create a standard. This will be a wobly standard when we do not help our users with some easy explanations on how to listen to it. We will not get all these .ogg files when we do not find people to record their pronounciations and explain how to record .ogg files.
So far I have only learned about ashampoo and audacity. There are perhaps better tools, I am convinced that there are people on the list that do know better than me.
Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 17:13:43 +0200, Gerard Meijssen gerardm@myrealbox.com wrote:
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote on wikitech-l:
This has already been discussed at great length both on wikien and on wikipedia talk:sound, and the overwhelming consensus was not to use none-free formats which would possibly lock us into proprietery software.
It is nice to see that things are discussed on wikien and on wikipedia, it is also nice that some sort of consensus was reached. I hope you can agree with me on two points.
- Not everyone discusses on wikien and en:wikipedia.
Yes, however it was announced: * On the main mailing list * On the Village Pump * On the community portal
- If such a consensus does not result in some good explanations on how
to use .ogg files it is empty talk.
I have already pointed you to Wikipeda:Sound, read especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sound#Ogg_playback for instructions on how to playback Ogg Vorbis files and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sound#Ogg_encoding for how to encode them, does this explanation not suffice you?
I care little for people's opinion when they do not back it up with walking their talk. When people are to use .ogg in stead of .wav files or whatever, I expect that it must be simple to use this format. When it is not, it is astounding that I fail to find an "howto use sound" in wikipedia. Apparently the great moral issues are more important than the practicalities.
I really appreciate it when a message can be as informative as "use media". Thanks again Brion :).
I am aware that Jimbo does want us to use .ogg files that is why I went this route. The reasons why are good enough for ME. But I think the explantions in wikimedia on how and why we use .ogg files really suck. I also think that we can do better. When we are going to upload thousants of pronounciations using .ogg files, we create a standard. This will be a wobly standard when we do not help our users with some easy explanations on how to listen to it. We will not get all these .ogg files when we do not find people to record their pronounciations and explain how to record .ogg files.
Granted *why* is not covered so well on Wikipedia:Sound, however it is a wiki, you can add it or leave a note on the talk page saying what is ill-explained.
So far I have only learned about ashampoo and audacity. There are perhaps better tools, I am convinced that there are people on the list that do know better than me.
Thanks, GerardM
Your reply style makes it very difficult to find what you write, and this is probably why Gerard missed the link. Please leave an empty line or two before and after your reply when it's in the middle of the previous post.
Alfio
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004, [ISO-8859-1] �var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason wrote:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 17:13:43 +0200, Gerard Meijssen gerardm@myrealbox.com wrote:
�var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason wrote on wikitech-l:
This has already been discussed at great length both on wikien and on wikipedia talk:sound, and the overwhelming consensus was not to use none-free formats which would possibly lock us into proprietery software.
It is nice to see that things are discussed on wikien and on wikipedia, it is also nice that some sort of consensus was reached. I hope you can agree with me on two points.
- Not everyone discusses on wikien and en:wikipedia.
Yes, however it was announced:
- On the main mailing list
- On the Village Pump
- On the community portal
- If such a consensus does not result in some good explanations on how
to use .ogg files it is empty talk.
I have already pointed you to Wikipeda:Sound, read especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sound#Ogg_playback for instructions on how to playback Ogg Vorbis files and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sound#Ogg_encoding for how to encode them, does this explanation not suffice you?
I care little for people's opinion when they do not back it up with walking their talk. When people are to use .ogg in stead of .wav files or whatever, I expect that it must be simple to use this format. When it is not, it is astounding that I fail to find an "howto use sound" in wikipedia. Apparently the great moral issues are more important than the practicalities.
I really appreciate it when a message can be as informative as "use media". Thanks again Brion :).
I am aware that Jimbo does want us to use .ogg files that is why I went this route. The reasons why are good enough for ME. But I think the explantions in wikimedia on how and why we use .ogg files really suck. I also think that we can do better. When we are going to upload thousants of pronounciations using .ogg files, we create a standard. This will be a wobly standard when we do not help our users with some easy explanations on how to listen to it. We will not get all these .ogg files when we do not find people to record their pronounciations and explain how to record .ogg files.
Granted *why* is not covered so well on Wikipedia:Sound, however it is a wiki, you can add it or leave a note on the talk page saying what is ill-explained.
So far I have only learned about ashampoo and audacity. There are perhaps better tools, I am convinced that there are people on the list that do know better than me.
Thanks, GerardM
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 26 Sep 2004, at 17:44, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
- Not everyone discusses on wikien and en:wikipedia.
Yes, however it was announced:
- On the main mailing list
- On the Village Pump
- On the community portal
- If such a consensus does not result in some good explanations on how
to use .ogg files it is empty talk.
I have already pointed you to Wikipeda:Sound, read especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sound#Ogg_playback for instructions on how to playback Ogg Vorbis files and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sound#Ogg_encoding for how to encode them, does this explanation not suffice you?
Gerard's complaints and your response really reminded me of this:
Yes, true, you and me can easily take the info on Wikipedia:Sound and get ready to roll, but A LOT of users will be stumped with this task.
'''Think like a user.'''
And think like Joe Random User (NOT Joe Random Developer) who's skillset encompasses browsing the Wikipedia, clicking an edit button and typing.
I acknowledge that I ''should'' ideally try to improve that page myself, but I'm put off by two things: 1. As things are currently set up it's far from clear that Joe will even find that page. I reckon template and/or markup changes are required to make this more digestable to Joe. 2. I don't have the best oversight of all things .ogg as I'm still mostly ignoring it. (I correctly configured my box to play ogg just yesterday, in response to this thread.) So there are better people than me to clear this one up.
HOWEVER: The fact that we're even having this conversation proves Gerard's and my point that things are still just not good enough. Pointing out that fact IS in itself a constructive step forward.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
Jens Ropers wrote:
The fact that we're even having this conversation proves Gerard's and my point that things are still just not good enough. Pointing out that fact IS in itself a constructive step forward.
Yes. There is no question in my mind that we should have an obvious link in every obvious place where a person might be baffled, we should help them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Tatum
has this link in it: [[media:Elegie (Art Tatum).ogg|"Elegie"]]
Perhaps the rendered html for that wik markup should include a link to a very user-friendly page "How to play ogg".
--Jimbo
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
Yes, however it was announced:
- On the main mailing list
- On the Village Pump
- On the community portal
- If such a consensus does not result in some good explanations on how
to use .ogg files it is empty talk.
I have already pointed you to Wikipeda:Sound, read especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sound#Ogg_playback for instructions on how to playback Ogg Vorbis files and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sound#Ogg_encoding for how to encode them, does this explanation not suffice you?
Those links are only meaningful to an experienced Wikipedian. They are of absolutely no use to a casual visitor who may just want to hear how a word on Wiktionary is pronounced. A link would need to be placed on each and every page that has a .ogg file on it, much as is done at sites that have .pdf files.
Communicating these issues can be a big problem. I know about it because I subscribe to this mailing list. I rarely visit the other two sites. How was it discussed among your Icelandic colleagues?
Ec
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 18:42:36 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Those links are only meaningful to an experienced Wikipedian. They are of absolutely no use to a casual visitor who may just want to hear how a word on Wiktionary is pronounced. A link would need to be placed on each and every page that has a .ogg file on it, much as is done at sites that have .pdf files.
Communicating these issues can be a big problem. I know about it because I subscribe to this mailing list. I rarely visit the other two sites.
OK, a proposal: * A [[Help:Sounds]] page should be created * This page should be linked to automatically from the "Image:" (description) page for every file matching *.ogg [since we have no better way of determining file type] * It should be strongly encouraged for people to add a link to this if they use a [[Media:]] link to an Ogg Vorbis file. * The page should be biased heavily towards casual visitors who have no prior knowledge of Ogg; possibly even no real conception of different filetypes * Software for playback should be listed in a step-by-step/how-to style, with the name most likely to be recognised mentioned at the beginning of each item
e.g.: "Sounds on {{sitename}} are stored in a format called [[Ogg Vorbis]], which is a form of compression which makes them faster to download. It is similar to the popular format known as [[MP3]], but there are a legal issues associated with that format that make it undesirable for our use.
==How to play sounds== Unfortunately, the Ogg Vorbis format is not yet as common as others, so you may find you do not have software that can play these files. Below is a list of what programs can be used:
===Windows=== * '''Winamp''': support included in full installs of versions 2.80 and later; [http://.. available here] ** if you used a "compact" installer, you may need [http://.. this plugin] * '''Windows Media Player''': support can be added through [http://.. this plugin] * '''QuickTime''': plugin available [http://.. here]
===MacOS=== (similar)
===Linux and UNIX systems=== (etc)
Would this cover what people want?
On 26 Sep 2004, at 15:43, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
It appers you havent even tried doing so yourself: http://www.google.com/search?q=http+filetype%3Aogg
Ah. I didn't know/think of the http filetype search syntax. Thanks for the hint! :)
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:43:27 +0200 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason avarab@gmail.com wrote:
Then again, as we're not actually in the business of writing audio encoding software, we might just as well put up with reality and allow mp3 uploads.
This has already been discussed at great length both on wikien and on wikipedia talk:sound, and the overwhelming consensus was not to use none-free formats which would possibly lock us into proprietery software.
So instead we prefer to have every Windows user go through the same process of seeing that he can't listen to .ogg files and with great difficulty upload a special program to listen to it, where almost all of them are already having the possibility to listen to mp3s?
And if we have this policy, why are jpegs still ok? (just google for jpeg+patent+forgent to see what I mean)
I would like to change this policy, and instead of looking at patent rights, allow those and only those formats that have widely used freely available players on all of Windows, Linux and Mac.
Andre Engels
Yes, MP3 being license-encumbered is worrying. BUT: We neither decode nor encode audio files. We only host them for people to retrieve. We don't have to worry about MP3's license status.
Yes, we would like to advocate free alternatives and no, we should not disallow .ogg if allowing MP3. BUT NOTE:
***Most operating systems are not free either and*** ***we don't bar Win or Mac folks from using the Wikipedia.***
We even expressly _cater_ for MSIE quirks to a considerable (and painfully high) extent. Surely if we do that then we can allow existing users of the non-free MP3 format to use their known and ***ubiquitous*** format?
Second thought, I'd even go so far as to advocate WP going .ogg only and becoming a driving force in .ogg adoption, but ONLY, ONLY once a totally hassle-free solution with simple, short and FULLY sufficient end user friendly instructions exists.
Despite the concomitant loss of quality (which can be partially avoided by "oversampling"/using higher sampling rates) we can always convert MP3 files and switch to .ogg ONCE WE AND .OGG ARE FULLY THERE in terms of user-friendliness. As long as that's not the case insisting on .ogg would only serve to prevent most people from using audio with MediaWiki/Wikipedia.
On 26 Sep 2004, at 23:04, Andre Engels wrote:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:43:27 +0200 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason avarab@gmail.com wrote:
Then again, as we're not actually in the business of writing audio encoding software, we might just as well put up with reality and allow mp3 uploads.
This has already been discussed at great length both on wikien and on wikipedia talk:sound, and the overwhelming consensus was not to use none-free formats which would possibly lock us into proprietery software.
So instead we prefer to have every Windows user go through the same process of seeing that he can't listen to .ogg files and with great difficulty upload a special program to listen to it, where almost all of them are already having the possibility to listen to mp3s?
And if we have this policy, why are jpegs still ok? (just google for jpeg+patent+forgent to see what I mean)
I would like to change this policy, and instead of looking at patent rights, allow those and only those formats that have widely used freely available players on all of Windows, Linux and Mac.
Andre Engels _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 00:38:03 +0200, Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
Yes, MP3 being license-encumbered is worrying. BUT: We neither decode nor encode audio files. We only host them for people to retrieve. We don't have to worry about MP3's license status.
Of course we technically don't, but this is not just about doing what we *have* to do but rather doing what is right. Using a free audio format guarantees that it can be decoded and encoded in the future with free software, which means for example that if wikipedia were to be distributed on a CD along with software necessary to display it the distributor would not have to pay licence fees to fraunhoffer or worse not be allowed to distribute the files at all.
Imagine a similar situation where we would use Microsoft Word documents to store content rather than wikitext, that too would putting all those who wish to read the content at the mercy of a corporate entity.
Yes, we would like to advocate free alternatives and no, we should not disallow .ogg if allowing MP3. BUT NOTE:
***Most operating systems are not free either and*** ***we don't bar Win or Mac folks from using the Wikipedia.***
Your analogy is flawed, what matters is that one should not need proprietary software to access wikimedia content, you can of course do so but having the choice is what this is about, with a proprietary format you might not have that choice any longer.
Remember also that the reason you can access wikimedia content on multiple platforms today is because it uses open standards, html, http, png and such, i for one would like to keep it that way.
We even expressly _cater_ for MSIE quirks to a considerable (and painfully high) extent. Surely if we do that then we can allow existing users of the non-free MP3 format to use their known and ***ubiquitous*** format?
Second thought, I'd even go so far as to advocate WP going .ogg only and becoming a driving force in .ogg adoption, but ONLY, ONLY once a totally hassle-free solution with simple, short and FULLY sufficient end user friendly instructions exists.
Despite the concomitant loss of quality (which can be partially avoided by "oversampling"/using higher sampling rates) we can always convert MP3 files and switch to .ogg ONCE WE AND .OGG ARE FULLY THERE in terms of user-friendliness. As long as that's not the case insisting on .ogg would only serve to prevent most people from using audio with MediaWiki/Wikipedia.
Honestly i think that you and others are taking this totally out of proportion, it's a plug in which can be downloaded in 2-5mins, for free!, remember that through some amazing miracle of ( insert deity here ) people were very well capable of doing just that when Windows did not ship with mp3 support not so long ago.
On 26 Sep 2004, at 23:04, Andre Engels wrote:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:43:27 +0200 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason avarab@gmail.com wrote:
Then again, as we're not actually in the business of writing audio encoding software, we might just as well put up with reality and allow mp3 uploads.
This has already been discussed at great length both on wikien and on wikipedia talk:sound, and the overwhelming consensus was not to use none-free formats which would possibly lock us into proprietery software.
So instead we prefer to have every Windows user go through the same process of seeing that he can't listen to .ogg files and with great difficulty upload a special program to listen to it, where almost all of them are already having the possibility to listen to mp3s?
And if we have this policy, why are jpegs still ok? (just google for jpeg+patent+forgent to see what I mean)
I would like to change this policy, and instead of looking at patent rights, allow those and only those formats that have widely used freely available players on all of Windows, Linux and Mac.
Andre Engels _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Andre Engels wrote:
And if we have this policy, why are jpegs still ok? (just google for jpeg+patent+forgent to see what I mean)
It seems fairly clear to me that the alleged jpeg patents are going to be held to be invalid soon enough. We need not take into account every crackpot legal claim out there.
--Jimbo
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 23:45:18 +0200 Gerard Meijssen gerardm@myrealbox.com wrote:
Questions:
- How can I make the .ogg file execute immediately (without a detail
screen) ?
Use [[Media:nl-Nederlands.ogg|text]] rather than [[Afbeelding:nl-Nederlands.ogg]].
*When can I upload sound files to COMMONS so that every wiktionary can share this and similar resources ? http://nl.wiktionary.org/wiki/Afbeelding:nl-Nederlands.ogg
It should be possible already; isn't it?
Andre Engels
On Sep 26, 2004, at 1:55 PM, Andre Engels wrote:
*When can I upload sound files to COMMONS so that every wiktionary can share this and similar resources ? http://nl.wiktionary.org/wiki/Afbeelding:nl-Nederlands.ogg
It should be possible already; isn't it?
You can in fact upload files there, but afaik you'll need to use a URL link rather than some spiffy interwiki media: link which wouldn't currently work.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org