Sound Links In Cache Pages

[+Grey Wolf and Wild Rice]

Sorry if this may have been discussed before, but for some reason HTML sound links disappear if I edit a cache page or try to place them into a new cache page.

 

Existing ones stay if I do not edit the page.

 

Is this a GXing.com purge or part of the new HTML Tidy removal process?

[+CO Admin]

Sorry if this may have been discussed before, but for some reason HTML sound links disappear if I edit a cache page or try to place them into a new cache page.

 

Existing ones stay if I do not edit the page.

 

Is this a GXing.com purge or part of the new HTML Tidy removal process?

new HTML Tidy !

[Jeremy]

Is it valid html code? Please show an example.

[+Grey Wolf and Wild Rice]

Here's two:

 

<BGSOUND src="http://video.fws.gov/sounds/12wolveshowlfar.mp3">

<BGSOUND src="http://video.fws.gov/sounds/44loons.mp3">

 

One of these is already on one of my TB pages and operates correctly. The 44loons one was on a cache page and disappeared when I edited the cache page.

 

I have even tried to create a cache page with nothing but a sound link and it is gone when you view and edit the cache page.

[+NoLemon]

It is not valid HTML. <BGSOUND...> is a Microsoft extension to HTML and not part of the HTML4 standard. Not all browsers support it (thankfully!)

[+Grey Wolf and Wild Rice]

So HTML Tidy is stripping all that out? There area lot of cache pages out there with sound clips and it looks like cache owners need to be warned that editing them will be terminal to that code line.

 

All the sources I have found on HTML (not HTML4) show what I and many others are using to be valid HTML code.

 

How about it Jeremy? Was that GC.com's intent?

[+WascoZooKeeper]

93.7% of all geocachers find background sound on cache pages to be annoying, so please don't do it even if you can. If you have a sound file that you think is particularly noteworthy, then include it as a link and those who want to hear it can click on the link.

 

And oh, by the way, 72.3% of all statistics are made up.

[+dogbreathcanada]

So HTML Tidy is stripping all that out? There area lot of cache pages out there with sound clips and it looks like cache owners need to be warned that editing them will be terminal to that code line.

 

All the sources I have found on HTML (not HTML4) show what I and many others are using to be valid HTML code.

 

How about it Jeremy? Was that GC.com's intent?

They're lucky. I'd write code that went and stripped them all out, editing or not. Adding sound files onto cache pages is rude.

 

Thankfully I use a broswer that ignores silly MS extensions to HTML.

[+tozainamboku]

Thankfully I use a broswer that ignores silly MS extensions to HTML.

I use a brower where I can uncheck the the option to play sounds in web pages. Its called Internet Explorer

Edited September 15, 2005 by tozainamboku

[+Stunod]

If you MUST have sound on your cache page, please follow Markwell's instructions HERE for adding an audio controller to the webpage. This will allow people to press PLAY if they want to hear your sound.

 

(I haven't tried running this format thru HTML-Tidy, so I don't know for sure if it will work)

[Pto]

Adding sound files onto cache pages is rude.

 

Isnt This a little rude?

 

If YOU dont like them, then dont look at them. If the OP wants to use them, its not up to anyone to tell them they cant.

 

Thankfully I use a brower that utilizes Proper Html - its called Firefox.

 

Also- Here's a link to an Html4 guide, just in case you hadnt found anything.

[+dogbreathcanada]

If YOU dont like them, then dont look at them.

The point being that you don't know the sound file is there until you open the page. And by then it's too late. It's not exactly a good thing to be at work, perusing a few cache pages, when suddenly wolf howls start emanating from your office. Kind of gives away that you're not currently engaged in company business.

[Pto]

OK, in that context your right - being at work when things auto-start is kinda bad.

I also hadnt thought about the "its too late" aspect- since Im at work now- but at home, on dialup - that would really KILL me. - So, I guess I see your point now, and Im sorry to have jumped at that -

 

The "play" button seems to be the best option. Gotta have QT tho-

[ju66l3r]

93.7% of all geocachers find background sound on cache pages to be annoying, so please don't do it even if you can.

  It's not exactly a good thing to be at work, perusing a few cache pages, when suddenly wolf howls start emanating from your office. Kind of gives away that you're not currently engaged in company business.

 

I guess employers are the other 6.3%.

[+Prime Suspect]

So HTML Tidy is stripping all that out? There area lot of cache pages out there with sound clips and it looks like cache owners need to be warned that editing them will be terminal to that code line.

 

All the sources I have found on HTML (not HTML4) show what I and many others are using to be valid HTML code.

 

How about it Jeremy? Was that GC.com's intent?

Even prior to HTML Tidy being used, geocaching.com stripped out code considered "unacceptable", such as javascript, flash, etc. Remember that you're not actually creating a web page, you're creating HTML that has to exist inside someone else page. So things are removed that might cause security problems, or that might not play nice with the rest of the page.

[+Urubu]

There are good reasons to "tidy" the HTML that the cache owner inserts into a cache page. However, it's not a particularly good idea to add unannounced features that retroactively change pages without notifying the owner.

 

Despite the understandable hostility that some users feel toward embedded sounds, there are a exceptional occasions when they're ok. One exception might be puzzle caches based on sounds.

 

I have a puzzle cache, Tallahassee Blues, that is very sound-oriented. The music was an integral part of the puzzle. I had a <bgsound> tag for MSIE users, and a backup clickable link for others. I did a minor text edit after "tidy" had been implemented (without any notice...) and when I saved the page an important part of my puzzle (the <bgsound> tag that worked for 90+% of users) was irretrievably gone. Grrrrr.

 

I can live with "tidy", but I wish that I had been told about it beforehand, or that it would at least let me know that it was changing the content of my page without asking.

[+The Leprechauns]

Perhaps you missed the announcement of HTML Tidy's implementation, found here. When I see something different on the website, I make it a habit to check the announcements forum. It's easy to overlook, up at the top of the page!

[+Glenn]

There are good reasons to "tidy" the HTML that the cache owner inserts into a cache page. However, it's not a particularly good idea to add unannounced features that retroactively change pages without notifying the owner.

 

Despite the understandable hostility that some users feel toward embedded sounds, there are a exceptional occasions when they're ok.  One exception might be puzzle caches based on sounds.

 

I have a puzzle cache, Tallahassee Blues, that is very sound-oriented. The music was an integral part of the puzzle. I had a <bgsound> tag for MSIE users, and a backup clickable link for others.  I did a minor text edit after "tidy" had been implemented (without any notice...) and when I saved the page an important part of my puzzle (the <bgsound> tag that worked for 90+% of users) was irretrievably gone.  Grrrrr.

 

I can live with "tidy", but I wish that I had been told about it beforehand, or that it would at least let me know that it was changing the content of my page without asking.

It was announced, on Aug 3rd. You will find that GC makes announcements in thier Geocaching Announcements forum. IF you are active on GC.com you should occasionally review that forum for changes.

[+Urubu]

Thanks for the pointers to the announcements page. I didn't know about it, and I'll try to keep an eye on it when I have questions in the future. But I don't withdraw my "Grrrr" about the system changing my existing cache page without telling me that it had done so.

 

It also looks like even if I had been very attentive and actively noticed the "tidy" change, I would have had to dig pretty far into the links to discover its effects on embedded sounds.

[+Anonymous']

If YOU dont like them, then dont look at them.

The point being that you don't know the sound file is there until you open the page. And by then it's too late. It's not exactly a good thing to be at work, perusing a few cache pages, when suddenly wolf howls start emanating from your office. Kind of gives away that you're not currently engaged in company business.

Exactly, I'm one of those who finds sound on cache pages annoying. I suggest that if you want sound on your page do what Stunod suggested.

[+Runaround]

HTML Tidy helped clean up pages for paperless caching and it got rid of the annoying sounds that people wanted to foist on us. I see it as a double bonus.

 

As others have said, if you want sound, make it optional. I have yet to see a cache page where the sound was needed for a successful hunt.

[+Prime Suspect]

Thanks for the pointers to the announcements page. I didn't know about it, and I'll try to keep an eye on it when I have questions in the future. But I don't withdraw my "Grrrr" about the system changing my existing cache page without telling me that it had done so.

 

It also looks like even if I had been very attentive and actively noticed the "tidy" change, I would have had to dig pretty far into the links to discover its effects on embedded sounds.

You can also subscribe to the entire "Geocaching Announcements" forum. You'll get an email when a new topic is added. It's a good way to keep on top of things.

[+tls11823]

I have yet to see a cache page where the sound was needed for a successful hunt.

Try this one.

 

However, this is well-mannered and requires clicking a link to get a midi file. You can even download it for later listening.

 

I figured this one out when it was first posted. Actually, I cheated and loadeded the midi file into sequencing software. It was more fun and technical for me. Now I just need to get to that location one of these days to prove I'm right...

[+Runaround]

OK, that one's cool. You need the sound and it needs to be clicked on to play.

 

That's a lot better than assorted Halloween noises, wolf howls, or the Chicken Dance that I've run into on cache pages.

[+Anonymous']

OK, that one's cool. You need the sound and it needs to be clicked on to play.

 

That's a lot better than assorted Halloween noises, wolf howls, or the Chicken Dance that I've run into on cache pages.

You're right, that one is a lot better.

[+Urubu]

Everyone should be entitled to their own opinion about background sounds.

 

I usually hate them. They're often used unwisely and unnecessarily. But different users may have other opinions. That's why we can choose and control our browsers.

 

We can use Firefox. If we use MSIE, we can turn sounds off: Click

Tools > Internet Options > Advanced > Multimedia,

then uncheck the box that says "Play Sounds in Web Pages", and you'll never again hear another unwanted, unexpected howl or shriek from a cache page.

 

On the other hand, there may occasionally be good reasons for a hider to include a background sound, even one that plays automatically. That's why hiders could (before "tidy") decide how to set up their cache pages.

 

That seems like an appropriate model: hiders control page content (within broad limits necessary for security, uniformity of look and feel, etc.), and page visitors choose their browser and control its settings.

 

But that's not how "tidy" is currently working with respect to background sounds: it imposes new limits on hiders constructing new pages, and changes existing pages when they are edited (without any warning during or notification after editing.)

Edited September 18, 2005 by Urubu

[+dogbreathcanada]

Everyone should be entitled to their own opinion about background sounds.

No, they shouldn't.

[+Prime Suspect]

That's why hiders could (before "tidy") decide how to set up their cache pages.

That's not true. Even before HTML Tidy was implemented, there were restrictions on what could be included on a cache page. For example, no java or javascript, and no iFrames. And if you did include them, they were silently removed, just like HTML Tidy does now. This is not anything particularly new.

[+Urubu]

You're right, PS, and that's what I meant by 'security' and 'good reasons to "tidy" the HTML that the cache owner inserts into a cache page'.

 

But "tidy" is doing more than advertised. It's not just cleaning up bad HTML. It's also putting a new restriction on what can go into a page, and it's imposing that restriction retroactively if you edit. That issue was the origin of this thread.

 

I understand that this is not a problem for the vast majority of users. But for hiders who have crafted puzzles that depend on sounds, it's pretty irritating.

[+Grey Wolf and Wild Rice]

But "tidy" is doing more than advertised. It's not just cleaning up bad HTML. It's also putting a new restriction on what can go into a page, and it's imposing that restriction retroactively if you edit. That issue was the origin of this thread.

Thanks Uburu for the reminder on the thread's subject.

 

I started this subject, since GC.com prefers that all questions to them be communicated here, in forums. I was asked by Jeremy to provide an example of the code early in the thread. I did that and no answer has come from him, so I am assuming that it got lost in all the opinions about browsers and usage of sound.

 

Seems this has become a forum to express the opinion about sounds (just turn your volume down) and not to discuss the changes that have been applied to the website without the full knowledge of the users.

 

The announcement from GC.com says Tidy is to clean up poorly writtem HTML. Any source out there says that the BGSOUND command is valid. And that being the case, it should not be stripped out. If the intent was to only allow HTML4 commands, then they need to clearly state that in the announcement and the "edit cache" page. As of now, it gives the option of HTML and that's all.

 

BTW....Another thing Tidy takes out is the ability to place one's own background images in as HTML and control the size on the cache page. This also can be important, as many cachers use this for hints or solutuons to the cache. Yes, there is a spot on the cache entry page, but when using it, the control of the size is lost.

 

What's next? Smiley's? Color? Font size? Pictures?

[+Glenn]

But "tidy" is doing more than advertised. It's not just cleaning up bad HTML. It's also putting a new restriction on what can go into a page, and it's imposing that restriction retroactively if you edit.  That issue was the origin of this thread.

Thanks Uburu for the reminder on the thread's subject.

 

I started this subject, since GC.com prefers that all questions to them be communicated here, in forums. I was asked by Jeremy to provide an example of the code early in the thread. I did that and no answer has come from him, so I am assuming that it got lost in all the opinions about browsers and usage of sound.

 

Seems this has become a forum to express the opinion about sounds (just turn your volume down) and not to discuss the changes that have been applied to the website without the full knowledge of the users.

 

The announcement from GC.com says Tidy is to clean up poorly writtem HTML. Any source out there says that the BGSOUND command is valid. And that being the case, it should not be stripped out. If the intent was to only allow HTML4 commands, then they need to clearly state that in the announcement and the "edit cache" page. As of now, it gives the option of HTML and that's all.

 

BTW....Another thing Tidy takes out is the ability to place one's own background images in as HTML and control the size on the cache page. This also can be important, as many cachers use this for hints or solutuons to the cache. Yes, there is a spot on the cache entry page, but when using it, the control of the size is lost.

 

What's next? Smiley's? Color? Font size? Pictures?

The W3C recommendations are considered the standard for HTML4. Anything else is brower specific and will be removed and/or cleaned up by HTML Tidy.

 

Any method of overriding a pages background graphics is considered poor form and cleaned up (removed) by HTML Tidy. If you want more control over how and where the background image is placed it might be easier to ask that functionality to be added to the add a background option.

[+Allen_L]

If you look at the w3.org page showing the Index of Elements for HTML 4.01, you will notice there is no BGSOUND in the list.

[+tool team]

QUOTE 1 (WascoZooKeeper @ Sep 15 2005, 04:23 PM)

93.7% of all geocachers find background sound on cache pages to be annoying, so please don't do it even if you can.

 

 

QUOTE 2(dogbreathcanada)

It's not exactly a good thing to be at work, perusing a few cache pages, when suddenly wolf howls start emanating from your office. Kind of gives away that you're not currently engaged in company business.

 

Quote 1: Also, 93.7 percent of those who can write complex computer codes are unable to find the volume button...oh, and I think their clock on their DVD player blinks 12:00 as well.

 

Quote 2: I find those alarms on cars and houses to be very annoying when you are trying to break in! And those darn blue lights when you run a stop light!!

[+fizzymagic]

On the other hand, there may occasionally be good reasons for a hider to include a background sound, even one that plays automatically. That's why hiders could (before "tidy") decide how to set up their cache pages.

I can't think of a situation in which a good cache would require this. In every instance I have seen of "special" features being required (e.g. background images, background sounds, etc.) the hider is being lazy or unimaginative.

 

If a background sound is absolutely required, the hider is always welcome to host his or her own page, and can just put a link to the page in the cache description. I think it is entirely reasonable to require that cache descriptions not contain any nonstandard, annoying features.

[+Marky]

I think it is entirely reasonable to require that cache descriptions not contain any nonstandard, annoying features.

Amen to that.

[+4agers]

I can't think of a situation in which a good cache would require this.  In every instance I have seen of "special" features being required (e.g. background images, background sounds, etc.) the hider is being lazy or unimaginative. 

 

If a background sound is absolutely required, the hider is always welcome to host his or her own page, and can just put a link to the page in the cache description.  I think it is entirely reasonable to require that cache descriptions not contain any nonstandard, annoying features.

I agree, and that is coming from a guy that loves to play with audio in his logs and cache pages. Simply link your audio if you think it adds to the page. Here is how I did it at one of our caches.