Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Stupid question about enclosure length

Expand Messages
  • ecomputerd
    I am not aware of an attribute that describes the enclosures duration in time. This would be specific only to those enclosure types that are non-interactive
    Message 1 of 16 , Jan 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I am not aware of an attribute that describes the enclosures
      duration in time. This would be specific only to those enclosure
      types that are non-interactive playable media. Enclosures are more
      generic than just podcasts or even "playable media".

      As far as the name is concerned, both "length" and "size" are used
      technically to describe the number of bytes in a file (in various
      APIs on various operating systems). The semantic connotation
      differences are probably only relevant if there were a different
      enclosure attribute to describe the duration.

      Confusing? Yes, unless you read the specification:

      http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss#ltenclosuregtSubelementOfLtitem
      gt

      "It has three required attributes. url says where the enclosure is
      located, length says how big it is in bytes, and type says what its
      type is, a standard MIME type."
    • Amy Gahran
      ... LOL, I ve gotta say it, that language fromt he standard is a CLASSIC example of why so many technogeeky things are confusing. Only a geek would immediately
      Message 2 of 16 , Jan 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 15:36:39 -0000, ecomputerd <ecomputerd@...> wrote:
        > Confusing? Yes, unless you read the specification:
        >
        > http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss#ltenclosuregtSubelementOfLtitem
        > gt
        >
        > "It has three required attributes. url says where the enclosure is
        > located, length says how big it is in bytes, and type says what its
        > type is, a standard MIME type."


        LOL, I've gotta say it, that language fromt he standard is a CLASSIC
        example of why so many technogeeky things are confusing. Only a geek
        would immediately assume that "length" = "file size."

        Go to any dictionary (you know, those alphabetical listings of
        ordinary words that ordinary people use). There, you'll see
        definitions like these:

        - The state, quality, or fact of being long.
        - The measurement of the extent of something along its greatest
        dimension: the length of the boat.
        - A measure used as a unit to estimate distances: won the race by a length.
        - Extent or distance from beginning to end: the length of a novel; the
        length of a journey.
        - The amount of time between specified moments; the duration: the
        length of a meeting.

        I don't mind so much that geeks write in their own language,
        especially when creating standards. But why, oh why, can't they go
        back and clarify those terms in the key documents once it's become
        apparent that people are getting confused, rather than just expecting
        people to figure it out willy-nilly?

        That just smacks of techno-snobbery to me. Only the initiated who can
        speak the sacred tongue may enter and explore the mysteries.....

        </rant>

        - Amy Gahran, your not-so-humble incorrigible word geek


        --

        Amy Gahran

        Editor, CONTENTIOUS:
        - http://blog.contentious.com

        Writer, Editor, Trainer, and Info-Provocateur:
        - http://gahran.com
      • Julian Yahoo 1
        ... From: Amy Gahran ... I had that when I started - looked at the xml for a Daily Source Code and thought what the heck is 42875345 . The clue was in the
        Message 3 of 16 , Jan 2, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Amy Gahran

          >LOL, I've gotta say it, that language fromt he standard is a CLASSIC
          >example of why so many technogeeky things are confusing. Only a geek
          >would immediately assume that "length" = "file size."

          I had that when I started - looked at the xml for a Daily Source Code and
          thought "what the heck is 42875345". The clue was in the 40.9Mb that was in
          the download list.

          Question: does it actually have to be 42875345 or would 42000000 do, since
          most pod-people will be more interested in a) the size being around 40Mb, b)
          the 34:39 that gives the real length.

          Is the exact size a useful or bureaucratic thing?

          Julian

          Web: www.thepicturepost.co.uk
          Blog: www.herecomespod.org.uk/blog/
          Podcast/RSS: http://www.bestchurches.org.uk/rss/offthebeatentrack.xml
        • Harold Johnson
          ... Without the _exact_ byte size, the podcast will be rejected by most iPodder clients. Nah, I m just messing around. I have no idea what will happen if we
          Message 4 of 16 , Jan 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 02:12:27 -0000, Julian Yahoo 1 <julianduk@...> wrote:

            > Question: does it actually have to be 42875345 or would 42000000 do, since
            > most pod-people will be more interested in a) the size being around 40Mb,
            > b)
            > the 34:39 that gives the real length.
            >
            > Is the exact size a useful or bureaucratic thing?

            Without the _exact_ byte size, the podcast will be rejected by most
            iPodder clients. Nah, I'm just messing around. I have no idea what
            will happen if we don't use the exact size, and I'm kind of concerned
            about it, too. It's the little details that keep me up at night...(I
            should have been a programmer.)

            Harold
          • Douglas E. Welch
            ... I would venture a guess that the size is what is used to calculate the % complete display when downloading the file. D -- For a variety of reasons,
            Message 5 of 16 , Jan 2, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              > Without the _exact_ byte size, the podcast will be rejected by most
              > iPodder clients. Nah, I'm just messing around. I have no idea what
              > will happen if we don't use the exact size, and I'm kind of concerned
              > about it, too. It's the little details that keep me up at night...(I
              > should have been a programmer.)

              I would venture a guess that the size is what is used to calculate the %
              complete display when downloading the file.

              D

              --
              "For a variety of reasons, improvements in the garden have been on hold for
              much too long. My motivation has been lacking to attack major improvements
              and even the day-to-day maintenance has suffered."

              From A Gardener's Notebook: Back in the soil again, July 23, 2000
              Read it all at: <http://www.welchwrite.com/agn/gn000723.asp>
            • ecomputerd
              ... Well, this geek (me) would recognize the ambiguity, then resolve it by reading the specification. ... expecting ... I m not sure what better key
              Message 6 of 16 , Jan 2, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                <RANT>

                > Only a geek would immediately assume that "length" = "file size."

                Well, this geek (me) would recognize the ambiguity, then resolve it
                by reading the specification.

                >But why, oh why, can't they go
                >back and clarify those terms in the key documents once it's become
                >apparent that people are getting confused, rather than just
                expecting
                >people to figure it out willy-nilly?


                I'm not sure what better "key document" there is aside from the
                specification. And I'm not sure what needs to be clarified
                about: "length says how big it is in bytes".

                Why, oh why, must non-geeks lament about the apparent techno-
                snobbery when all that is required is to READ THE SPECIFICATION!

                Enter "rss specification" in google, click the first listed
                item "RSS Specification 2.0" then click to the element items, then
                click "more" under enclosures. Then read: "length says how big it is
                in bytes."

                Sometimes reading is very helpful in understanding meaning, as
                opposed to simply guessing about the sacred tongue.

                > That just smacks of techno-snobbery to me. Only the initiated who
                can
                > speak the sacred tongue may enter and explore the mysteries.....

                The only initiative I see that is necessary is the initiative to
                read the specification.
                </RANT>

                If there is something confusing about the specification, then please
                try to describe it, ask for clarification, or attempt clarification
                and ask for agreement. Sometime rants just provoke other rants.
              • ecomputerd
                ... the % ... In some aggregators (well, mine anyway), the length is used to determine if the enclosure is downloaded completely. I ve written more detail
                Message 7 of 16 , Jan 2, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  > I would venture a guess that the size is what is used to calculate
                  the %
                  > complete display when downloading the file.
                  >
                  > D

                  In some aggregators (well, mine anyway), the length is used to
                  determine if the enclosure is downloaded completely. I've written
                  more detail about 5 posts ago:

                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/podcasters/message/1002
                • Pete Prodoehl
                  ... Using curl I ask my server some info about a URI: curl -I http://rasterweb.net/raster/audio/rwaudio20041218.mp3 It tells me this: HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date:
                  Message 8 of 16 , Jan 3, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Harold Johnson wrote:
                    > I wanted to add:
                    >
                    > Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to name this tag "size"?

                    Using curl I ask my server some info about a URI:

                    curl -I http://rasterweb.net/raster/audio/rwaudio20041218.mp3

                    It tells me this:

                    HTTP/1.1 200 OK
                    Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:38:14 GMT
                    Server: Apache/1.3.31 (Unix)
                    Last-Modified: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 09:14:17 GMT
                    ETag: "6db820-8518c-41c3f4e9"
                    Accept-Ranges: bytes
                    Content-Length: 545164
                    Content-Type: audio/mpeg

                    See the 'Content-Length' that's where 'length' comes from, and why it
                    isn't called 'size' in the RSS spec. Yes, it is a bit confusing since we
                    are dealing with something that has a 'length' to it, in this case audio
                    recordings...

                    Pete
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.