Posting Video (HTML Command Vanity)

[goldstategop]

Ok, could someone list the command to embed a video in a post or reply?

Some sites do this automatically. I need HTML help here.

The basics cover posting links and pictures, which I'm familiar with.

How does one post a video from say, YouTube on here?

[cynwoody]

Looks like all you can do is include the link to the video.

Correct. FR strips out the tags you'd need (<video>, <embed>, <iframe>), depending on the video.

One useful hack, at least for YouTube, is the ability to cue a video link. E.g., if you have a two-hour video and want to show something that starts 47 minutes 55 seconds in, you can do:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Va-MfKWUmk#t=47m55s

[Manic_Episode]

"" URL goes where the ? is and no " outside the < >

[1_Rain_Drop]

FreeRepublic is the last and possibly only website that is user friendly to us, dial-up users. Yes, we still do exist.

Embeding a video would stop a page from loading.
Large photos slow us down tremendously.

When I see a page loading loading and still loading after all the text is viewable, I then know that there is a gif loading. Sometimes I have to refresh the page a few times to get the entire thread to load. That’s one reason I avoid the Mark Levin show thread.

All those peeps who have fast internet, it shouldn’t be much of a hassle for them to click on a link and view the video.

[Manic_Episode]

Crap, try again...

img src="?" with < at the front and > and the end and URL where the ? is

[Mears]

Thanks,Mikey——I knew you would have an easy to understand explanation.

You are a true mensch.

[cynwoody]

It may be a choice that FREE REPUBLIC made to keep the access speed as fast as it is. It literally screams...speed wise. and embedded video might slow that access speed down. I

It's not bandwidth. If video embedding were allowed, the video would still be served from wherever it is hosted, just as images currently are. E.g., if the <video> tag were allowed, the <source> tag(s) would still have to point outside FR, just as <img> tags, animated or otherwise, now do.

I suspect the reason was to avoid requiring the posting software to know too much HTML. When you write a post, you are contributing HTML code to the page, and the posting software needs to make sure your post isn't going to screw up the whole page. E.g., if you leave a <b> unclosed, the rest of the page would be in bold if the posting routine didn't notice and close it automatically. It manages to do that, but, to keep it simple, it strips out stuff it doesn't understand and therefore can't control, such as video embedding tags, iframes, CSS, JavaScript, etc.

[MeshugeMikey]

Danke!

Glad to have been of service!

[MeshugeMikey]

Thank you!

[867V309]

I think the real issue here is scripting, ie. JavaScript. I have scripting turned off via NoScript in Firefox and I NEVER see videos playing unless I take steps to see them.

I don't think it's possible to play videos by default on sites that block scripting, like FR.

BTW, I think JavaScript should be avoided like the plague. Excepting government, it is the root of all evil.

[kiryandil]

Click on the pic.

This is how we fix problems on Free Republic!

[MeshugeMikey]

ahahaha

thanks!

[Mears]

Thanks——very clever,and cool !

.

[kiryandil]

I private mailed you guys the code.

I go to Youtube, and do a search on the desired video (even if I know the link). I get the URL for the thumbnail image off the beginning search page, then go to the video itself.

I grab that URL, and replace only the two URLs inside that nested code I sent you (one for the thumbnail, the other for the video link).

[Kirkwood]

FR uses javascript.

I think you’re confusing javascript with java.

[MeshugeMikey]

thank you

[nomad]

bump

[867V309]

FR uses javascript.

Prove it.

[867V309]

FR uses javascript.

I think you’re confusing javascript with java.

Sorry about exposing you, but everyone who has allowed HTML input to their site knows to block scripting.

[cynwoody]

Prove it.

Did you ever notice how, when an FR page first loads, the times are all Pacific? Then they suddenly change to your computer's timezone and chosen date/time format? Here's the code:

// NG_Localize -- replace "date" class spans with localized date.
// <span class="date">11/19/2006 02:17 PM PST</span> gets localized.
function NG_Localize() {
    var tags = document.getElementsByTagName("span");
    for (var i = 0; i < tags.length; i ++) {
        if (tags[i].className == "date") {
            var da = new Date(tags[i].innerHTML); 
            if (da.getFullYear() > 1990) tags[i].innerHTML = da.toLocaleString();

            //var dy = da.getFullYear(); if (dy < 1970) dy = dy + 100;
            //var dm = da.getMonth() + 1; if (dm < 10) dm = "0" + dm;
            //var dd = da.getDate(); if (dd < 10) dd = "0" + dd;
            //var tm = da.getMinutes(); if (tm < 10) tm = "0" + tm;
            //var th = da.getHours() % 12; if (th == 0) th = 12; if (th < 10) th = "0" + th;
            //var tf = da.getHours() < 12 ? "AM" : "PM";
            //tags[i].innerHTML = dm + "/" + dd + "/" + dy + " " + th + ":" + tm + " " + tf;
        }
    }
}

What does it do? It rifles through all of the <span> tags on the page and for each one tagged with class 'date' which appears to contain a date/time, it replaces the date/time with a version localized to your computer.

It's from http://freerepublic.com/l/common.js. Click the link and see for yourself. That file is brought in from line 50 of this page's html source:

<script type="text/javascript" src="/l/common.js"></script>

Here's another JavaScript invocation that may cause some tinfoil to arc-over (it's from the bottom of the page):

    <script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript">_uacct = "UA-2288668-1"; urchinTracker();</script>

[867V309]

Right, but those are their scripts, not yours.

YOU cannot post scripts to play video or do other obnoxious things, as the OP requested.