.webm search test: type:webm (this either doesn't work or there are none yet. for other file types, adding a tag before the type seems to speed up the search)

Try type:swf vs. solo type:swf.

Consider the following:

Will there be audio? Perhaps tag webm files that include audio, "animated" for all webms, and "no_sound" for mute webm.

How about thumbnails? These didn't work for .swf but they should be possible with .webm. If they get regular thumbnails, should there be a way to distinguish them from regular images? Maybe the server can add a transparent filmstrip into the corner of each thumbnail or something.

Lance_Armstrong said:
.webm search test: type:webm (this either doesn't work or there are none yet. for other file types, adding a tag before the type seems to speed up the search)

Try type:swf vs. solo type:swf.

Consider the following:

Will there be audio? Perhaps tag webm files that include audio, "animated" for all webms, and "no_sound" for mute webm.

How about thumbnails? These didn't work for .swf but they should be possible with .webm. If they get regular thumbnails, should there be a way to distinguish them from regular images? Maybe the server can add a transparent filmstrip into the corner of each thumbnail or something.

They'll have thumbnails when I get around to making thumbnails work for SWF files as well. My intention is to allow a user to specify a thumbnail for any given SWF or webm file either by referencing another post (a la "thumb[nail]:<post_id>") or by specifying it at upload time. Either of those should be doable without too much hassle, but it will involve making some changes to the upload form, which is getting delayed by some of the site reworks.

As far as automatically generating a thumbnail, I suck at reading webm files and video formats in general (this is the same reason webm posts don't have any height or width properties). When I get around to looking more into the specifications, automatic thumbnails may become a possibility)

As far as the type:webm thing, that just completely slipped my mind.

I've actually been waiting for a post like this ever since I implemented support for these files. Please let me know if you find any other issues with the type or any recommendations.

Also if anyone has experience with reading webm byte data, I'd be interested in some shared knowledge. :)

https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/forum/#!topic/webm-discuss/zDIhkQ79R3A

That might help with the dimensions. It's a discussion of the terms in the spec.

If you do decide to let users specify another image as a thumbnail, you should add the ability to lock the current thumbnail. The thumbnail image should be a child post of the video/swf.

For uploaders, an option that allows you to add the webm/swf and a thumbnail at the same time would be interesting. They would appear right next to each other on the post index. Maybe we want an option that hides thumbnails from the post index (like the blacklist, but just a user settings checkbox).

Lance_Armstrong said:
If you do decide to let users specify another image as a thumbnail, you should add the ability to lock the current thumbnail. The thumbnail image should be a child post of the video/swf.

I'd rather have another thumbnail-specific association to the webm/swf file, actually. It would give better ability to clean up after delete posts.

spight said:
I'd rather have another thumbnail-specific association to the webm/swf file, actually. It would give better ability to clean up after delete posts.

You mean that you don't want thumbnail images to get their own image page and stuff?

spight said:
I'd rather have another thumbnail-specific association to the webm/swf file, actually. It would give better ability to clean up after delete posts.

parent-child relation?

I thought it would be a choice between "supply an image used as a thumbnail for this webm/flash post (which will not become a post on its own)" and "supply the id of an existing post to use as a thumbnail for this webm/flash post".

Creating a new post for the express purpose of being a webm/flash post's thumbnail would just be spammy and unnecessary, in my opinion.

Actually, type:webm already works. The code looked pretty obvious and I knew that there was already a webm post uploaded... but it's apparently a deleted post. :(

Lance_Armstrong said:
(... adding a tag before the type seems to speed up the search)

Apparently there wasn't an index on file_ext....

...three minutes later (mostly migration running time), it's been fixed. type searches should be much faster now.

Man, I love webm, it's so fucking smooth.

tony311 said:
I thought it would be a choice between "supply an image used as a thumbnail for this webm/flash post (which will not become a post on its own)" and "supply the id of an existing post to use as a thumbnail for this webm/flash post".

Creating a new post for the express purpose of being a webm/flash post's thumbnail would just be spammy and unnecessary, in my opinion.

True, but how many existing posts can represent a new webm/swf (chicken and egg problem here). GIFs maybe? If you made the thumbnail a GIF you could have the first frame from the GIF and you have an animated fallback. Nobody has claimed uploading GIF versions of SWFs to be spammy AFAIK.