«

http://odology.1littleworld.com/freewayjim-1.html

I wasted my time slapping together this little trinket.
100 plus videos all on the same page.
I wonder if youtube might get a hint and do something similar?
Of course not. Then they couldn't have as many ads.

I used tables for the videos simply because tables are easier to work
with.

On Oct 19, 1:02*pm, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> http://odology.1littleworld.com/freewayjim-1.html
>
> I wasted my time slapping together this little trinket.
> 100 plus videos all on the same page.
> I wonder if youtube might get a hint and do something similar?
> Of course not. Then they couldn't have as many ads.
>
> I used tables for the videos simply because tables are easier to work
> with.

You managed to make 764 validation errors when validated as html 4.01
transitional at the w3c. Many of these were caused by use of the
illegal embed tag,. although this often will work. Most imporant, is
that the page is much too slow to load, and I have a very high
broadband connection. It would appear that several to all of the
videos are being linked to YouTube at once, and although they are not
playing, this greatly slows things down. A way around this would be to
use a set of radio buttons, one by each video link. When clicked, the
selection would be sent to the server using php, and the server would
return the code just for the video selected. This can all be done
without any client side javascript. If you want a picture to link to
instead of just a text description, consider making small thumbnails
from each video of small byte size.

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 14:29:19 -0700 (PDT), cwdjrxyz
<> wrote:

>On Oct 19, 1:02*pm, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> http://odology.1littleworld.com/freewayjim-1.html
>>
>> I wasted my time slapping together this little trinket.
>> 100 plus videos all on the same page.
>> I wonder if youtube might get a hint and do something similar?
>> Of course not. Then they couldn't have as many ads.
>>
>> I used tables for the videos simply because tables are easier to work
>> with.
>
>You managed to make 764 validation errors when validated as html 4.01
>transitional at the w3c. Many of these were caused by use of the
>illegal embed tag,. although this often will work. Most imporant, is
>that the page is much too slow to load, and I have a very high
>broadband connection. It would appear that several to all of the
>videos are being linked to YouTube at once, and although they are not
>playing, this greatly slows things down. A way around this would be to
>use a set of radio buttons, one by each video link. When clicked, the
>selection would be sent to the server using php, and the server would
>return the code just for the video selected. This can all be done
>without any client side javascript. If you want a picture to link to
>instead of just a text description, consider making small thumbnails
>from each video of small byte size.

You did not read what I had posted in the first "home" tab.
On my dialup connection, it takes less than a minute for 6 videos to
load.
Unless your script is turned off, yeah you'd probably see nothing for
a very long time, if ever.

I had a look at all those errors, all were with the 3rd party
generated code. Embed itself is not illegal, it was some of the
elements within it the validator did not like.

I don't feel to bad, as I just sent youtube.com through the validator
and it found 100 errors.

On Oct 19, 8:44 pm, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 14:29:19 -0700 (PDT), cwdjrxyz
>
>
>
> <spamtr...@cwdjr.info> wrote:
> >On Oct 19, 1:02 pm, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >>http://odology.1littleworld.com/freewayjim-1.html
>
> >> I wasted my time slapping together this little trinket.
> >> 100 plus videos all on the same page.
> >> I wonder if youtube might get a hint and do something similar?
> >> Of course not. Then they couldn't have as many ads.
>
> >> I used tables for the videos simply because tables are easier to work
> >> with.
>
> >You managed to make 764 validation errors when validated as html 4.01
> >transitional at the w3c. Many of these were caused by use of the
> >illegal embed tag,. although this often will work. Most imporant, is
> >that the page is much too slow to load, and I have a very high
> >broadband connection. It would appear that several to all of the
> >videos are being linked to YouTube at once, and although they are not
> >playing, this greatly slows things down. A way around this would be to
> >use a set of radio buttons, one by each video link. When clicked, the
> >selection would be sent to the server using php, and the server would
> >return the code just for the video selected. This can all be done
> >without any client side javascript. If you want a picture to link to
> >instead of just a text description, consider making small thumbnails
> >from each video of small byte size.
>
> You did not read what I had posted in the first "home" tab.
> On my dialup connection, it takes less than a minute for 6 videos to
> load.
> Unless your script is turned off, yeah you'd probably see nothing for
> a very long time, if ever.

No my script was on and I did read what you posted in your home tab. I
also have a download connection of over 5 mbps at the moment when
downloading from a server that is not overloaded. It is still taking a
long time for the first video in the Louisiana section to show up and
even longer for the second video. It could well be that you have
several of these videos in your computer temporary cache. I have often
observed that downloading can appear to be be much faster the second
time around once it is in the temporary cache of the viewing computer.
The flash YouTube videos use flv/swf with the flv flash video file
being much larger than the swf file which just contains the player,
logos etc. Connecting to the swf file starts the flv downloading to
the temporary cache of the browser. It is always possible that there
is something slowing down the connection from your server to my
browser, but if so it has been going on all afternoon. In any event,
selecting the video you want first, sending that choice to the server
via php form, and having the server send the browser only the code for
the video chosen to be viewed will give the fastest possible
response.

> I had a look at all those errors, all were with the 3rd party
> generated code. Embed itself is not illegal, it was some of the
> elements within it the validator did not like.

What do you mean by third party generated code - perhaps something you
copied or some program produced. No matter what the source of the
code, it is now part of your page and is your error now. Embed is now
and never has been part of official w3c html. It is a relic from the
browser war era from the now long-gone Netscape browser. It still is
used by many who do not know better and often works. Also for your
flash application, using embed could be easily avoided using correct
object code for most browsers and ActiveX object code for IE making
use of Windows conditional comments. There also or other valid methods
that have been used.

>
> I don't feel to bad, as I just sent youtube.com through the validator
> and it found 100 errors.

Yes, YouTube, Google, and even Microsoft's home page are loaded with
w3c validation errors. These companies are much better at making money
or selling ads than in writing valid code. This is not the time to go
into a long discussion of why this is so. However, in answer to one of
your previous questions, I showed you code for handling YouTube videos
on a page that validates fully at w3c at the html 4.01 strict level,
and I often use code at the xhtml 1.1 level served properly as
application/xhtml+xml that also will fully validate at w3c. You likely
could do this as well on your page. Below are the w3c validator
reports for the code I showed you below. If you choose to use invalid
code, that is up to you. However I will make a point not to answer
your posts in the future, because from your answers here and to others
who give you suggestions, I seem to detect that you do not wish
critical answers. Thus I will try to satisfy your apparent wishes by
not answering new threads you may start.

__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________

http://www.cwdjr.net/video4/testYT.html


Modified: Mon Oct 6 10:32:28 2008
Server: Apache/1.3.37 (Unix) mod_throttle/3.1.2 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635
mod_psoft_traffic/0.2 mod_ssl/2.8.28 OpenSSL/0.9.8b
Size: 1743
Content-Type: text/html
Encoding: iso-8859-1
Doctype: HTML 4.01 Strict
Root Element: html
Options
Show Source Show Outline List Messages Sequentially Group Error
Messages by Type
Validate error pages Verbose Output Clean up Markup with HTML Tidy

Help on the options is available.
Congratulations

The document located at <http://www.cwdjr.net/video4/testYT.html> was
successfully checked as HTML 4.01 Strict. This means that the resource
in question identified itself as "HTML 4.01 Strict" and that we
successfully performed a formal validation using an SGML or XML Parser
(depending on the markup language used).
"valid" Icon(s) on your Web page

To show your readers that you have taken the care to create an
interoperable Web page, you may display this icon on any page that
validates. Here is the HTML you could use to add this icon to your Web
page:
Valid HTML 4.01 Strict

<p>
<a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=referer"><img
src="http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-html401"
alt="Valid HTML 4.01 Strict" height="31" width="88"></a>
</p>


Valid HTML 4.01 Strict

<p>
<a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=referer"><img
src="http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-html401-blue"
alt="Valid HTML 4.01 Strict" height="31" width="88"></a>
</p>


A full list of icons, with links to alternate formats and colors, is
available: If you like, you can download a copy of the icons to keep
in your local web directory, and change the HTML fragment above to
reference your local image rather than the one on this server.
Linking to this result

If you would like to create a link to this page (i.e., this validation
result) to make it easier to revalidate this page in the future or to
allow others to validate your page, the URI is <http://
validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cwdjr.net
%2Fvideo4%2FtestYT.html;ss=1> (or you can just add the current page to
your bookmarks or hotlist).
Validating CSS Style Sheets

If you use CSS in your document, you can check it using the W3C CSS
Validation Service.

$B",(B Top
Source Listing

Below is the source input I used for this validation:

1. <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">
2. <html lang="en">
3. <head>
4. <title>testYT</title>
5. <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/
html;charset=iso-8859-1">
6. <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css">
7.
8. <style type="text/css">
9. a:active {color: #888800; background-color: #ffffff}
10. a:visited {color: #008800;background-color: #ffffff}
11. a:link {color: #880000;background-color: #ffffff}
12. p {font-size:100%;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;background-
color: #ffffff}
13. p.threered {font-size:100%;color:#880000;font-
weight:bold;background-color: #ffffff}
14. p.h {font-size:125%;text-align:center;color: #990033;background-
color: #000000;font-weight:bold}
15. body {margin-left:2%;margin-right:2%;margin-top:2%;margin-bottom:
2%;background-color:#000000;color:#ffffff}
16. </style>
17. </head>
18. <body>
19. <p class="h">
20. YT TEST
21. </p>
22.
23. <div style="text-align:center">
24. <!--[if IE]>
25. <object classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000"
codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/
swflash.cab#version=6,0,29,0" width="425" height="344" >
26. <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/
x8uob0M3z2I&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1">
27. <param name="quality" value="high">
28. <param name="bgcolor" value="#000000">
29. <param name="autoplay" value="false">
30. <param name="loop" value="false"><param name="wmode"
value="transparent">
31. </object>
32. <![endif]-->
33. <!--[if !IE]>
34. <-->
35. <object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://
www.youtube.com/v/x8uob0M3z2I&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" width="425"
height="344">
36. <param name="quality" value="high"><param name="bgcolor"
value="#000000">
37. <param name="autoplay" value="false"><param name="loop"
value="false">
38. <param name="wmode" value="transparent">
39. </object>
40. <!-->
41. <![endif]-->
42. </div>
43.
44. </body>
45. </html>

__________________________________________________ __________________

W3C CSS Validator results for http://www.cwdjr.net/video4/testYT.html
(CSS level 3)
Congratulations! No Error Found.

This document validates as CSS level 3 !

To show your readers that you've taken the care to create an
interoperable Web page, you may display this icon on any page that
validates. Here is the XHTML you could use to add this icon to your
Web page:
Valid CSS!

<p>
<a href="http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/">
<img style="border:0;width:88px;height:31px"
src="http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/images/vcss"
alt="Valid CSS!" />
</a>
</p>


Valid CSS!

<p>
<a href="http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/">
<img style="border:0;width:88px;height:31px"
src="http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/images/vcss-blue"
alt="Valid CSS!" />
</a>
</p>


(close the img tag with > instead of /> if using HTML <= 4.01)

If you like, you can download a copy of this image to keep in your
local web directory, and change the XHTML fragment above to reference
your local image rather than the one on this server.

If you would like to create a link to this page (i.e., this validation
result) to make it easier to re-validate this page in the future or to
allow others to validate your page, the URI is:

http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...=all&warning=2
or
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/check/referer (for HTML/XML
document only)

On 19 Oct 2008, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:

> No my script was on and I did read what you posted in your home tab.
> I also have a download connection of over 5 mbps at the moment when
> downloading from a server that is not overloaded. It is still taking
> a long time for the first video in the Louisiana section to show up
> and even longer for the second video. It could well be that you have
> several of these videos in your computer temporary cache. I have
> often observed that downloading can appear to be be much faster the
> second time around once it is in the temporary cache of the viewing
> computer. The flash YouTube videos use flv/swf with the flv flash
> video file being much larger than the swf file which just contains
> the player, logos etc. Connecting to the swf file starts the flv
> downloading to the temporary cache of the browser. It is always
> possible that there is something slowing down the connection from
> your server to my browser, but if so it has been going on all
> afternoon. In any event, selecting the video you want first, sending
> that choice to the server via php form, and having the server send
> the browser only the code for the video chosen to be viewed will give
> the fastest possible response.

I quite agree with your conclusion but nevertheless the page loaded for
me surprisingly fast - appx. 6 seconds first time. Whatever vid I
clicked on started immediately and several ran simultaneously although
I didn't run more than 4 or test too extensively.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/

"Neredbojias" <> wrote in message
news:Xns9B3CF305F39Eneredbojiasnano@194.177.96.78. ..
> On 19 Oct 2008, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:

> I quite agree with your conclusion but nevertheless the page loaded for
> me surprisingly fast - appx. 6 seconds first time. Whatever vid I
> clicked on started immediately and several ran simultaneously although
> I didn't run more than 4 or test too extensively.

It loaded almost immediately for me.

Then again however flashblock stopped any of those videos from even
initialising and all I saw was the polite f asking if I wanted to view this
crap

Nice stuff, this flashblock. I waste my download bandwidth *only* if I
decide to and not at the whim of some web "designer".

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 21:36:28 -0700 (PDT), cwdjrxyz
<> wrote:

>On Oct 19, 8:44 pm, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 14:29:19 -0700 (PDT), cwdjrxyz
>>
>>
>>
>> <spamtr...@cwdjr.info> wrote:
>> >On Oct 19, 1:02 pm, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >>http://odology.1littleworld.com/freewayjim-1.html
>>
>> >> I wasted my time slapping together this little trinket.
>> >> 100 plus videos all on the same page.
>> >> I wonder if youtube might get a hint and do something similar?
>> >> Of course not. Then they couldn't have as many ads.
>>
>> >> I used tables for the videos simply because tables are easier to work
>> >> with.
>>
>> >You managed to make 764 validation errors when validated as html 4.01
>> >transitional at the w3c. Many of these were caused by use of the
>> >illegal embed tag,. although this often will work. Most imporant, is
>> >that the page is much too slow to load, and I have a very high
>> >broadband connection. It would appear that several to all of the
>> >videos are being linked to YouTube at once, and although they are not
>> >playing, this greatly slows things down. A way around this would be to
>> >use a set of radio buttons, one by each video link. When clicked, the
>> >selection would be sent to the server using php, and the server would
>> >return the code just for the video selected. This can all be done
>> >without any client side javascript. If you want a picture to link to
>> >instead of just a text description, consider making small thumbnails
>> >from each video of small byte size.
>>
>> You did not read what I had posted in the first "home" tab.
>> On my dialup connection, it takes less than a minute for 6 videos to
>> load.
>> Unless your script is turned off, yeah you'd probably see nothing for
>> a very long time, if ever.
>
>No my script was on and I did read what you posted in your home tab. I
>also have a download connection of over 5 mbps at the moment when
>downloading from a server that is not overloaded. It is still taking a
>long time for the first video in the Louisiana section to show up and
>even longer for the second video. It could well be that you have
>several of these videos in your computer temporary cache. I have often
>observed that downloading can appear to be be much faster the second
>time around once it is in the temporary cache of the viewing computer.
>The flash YouTube videos use flv/swf with the flv flash video file
>being much larger than the swf file which just contains the player,
>logos etc. Connecting to the swf file starts the flv downloading to
>the temporary cache of the browser. It is always possible that there
>is something slowing down the connection from your server to my
>browser, but if so it has been going on all afternoon. In any event,
>selecting the video you want first, sending that choice to the server
>via php form, and having the server send the browser only the code for
>the video chosen to be viewed will give the fastest possible
>response.
>
>> I had a look at all those errors, all were with the 3rd party
>> generated code. Embed itself is not illegal, it was some of the
>> elements within it the validator did not like.
>
>What do you mean by third party generated code - perhaps something you
>copied or some program produced. No matter what the source of the
>code, it is now part of your page and is your error now. Embed is now
>and never has been part of official w3c html. It is a relic from the
>browser war era from the now long-gone Netscape browser. It still is
>used by many who do not know better and often works. Also for your
>flash application, using embed could be easily avoided using correct
>object code for most browsers and ActiveX object code for IE making
>use of Windows conditional comments. There also or other valid methods
>that have been used.
>
>>
>> I don't feel to bad, as I just sent youtube.com through the validator
>> and it found 100 errors.
>
>Yes, YouTube, Google, and even Microsoft's home page are loaded with
>w3c validation errors. These companies are much better at making money
>or selling ads than in writing valid code. This is not the time to go
>into a long discussion of why this is so. However, in answer to one of
>your previous questions, I showed you code for handling YouTube videos
>on a page that validates fully at w3c at the html 4.01 strict level,
>and I often use code at the xhtml 1.1 level served properly as
>application/xhtml+xml that also will fully validate at w3c. You likely
>could do this as well on your page. Below are the w3c validator
>reports for the code I showed you below. If you choose to use invalid
>code, that is up to you. However I will make a point not to answer
>your posts in the future, because from your answers here and to others
>who give you suggestions, I seem to detect that you do not wish
>critical answers. Thus I will try to satisfy your apparent wishes by
>not answering new threads you may start.
>
>_________________________________________________ _____________________________________________
>
>http://www.cwdjr.net/video4/testYT.html
>
>
>Modified: Mon Oct 6 10:32:28 2008
>Server: Apache/1.3.37 (Unix) mod_throttle/3.1.2 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635
>mod_psoft_traffic/0.2 mod_ssl/2.8.28 OpenSSL/0.9.8b
>Size: 1743
>Content-Type: text/html
>Encoding: iso-8859-1
>Doctype: HTML 4.01 Strict
>Root Element: html
>Options
>Show Source Show Outline List Messages Sequentially Group Error
>Messages by Type
>Validate error pages Verbose Output Clean up Markup with HTML Tidy
>
>Help on the options is available.
>Congratulations
>
>The document located at <http://www.cwdjr.net/video4/testYT.html> was
>successfully checked as HTML 4.01 Strict. This means that the resource
>in question identified itself as "HTML 4.01 Strict" and that we
>successfully performed a formal validation using an SGML or XML Parser
>(depending on the markup language used).
>"valid" Icon(s) on your Web page
>
>To show your readers that you have taken the care to create an
>interoperable Web page, you may display this icon on any page that
>validates. Here is the HTML you could use to add this icon to your Web
>page:
>Valid HTML 4.01 Strict
>
> <p>
> <a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=referer"><img
> src="http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-html401"
> alt="Valid HTML 4.01 Strict" height="31" width="88"></a>
> </p>
>
>
>Valid HTML 4.01 Strict
>
> <p>
> <a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=referer"><img
> src="http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-html401-blue"
> alt="Valid HTML 4.01 Strict" height="31" width="88"></a>
> </p>
>
>
>A full list of icons, with links to alternate formats and colors, is
>available: If you like, you can download a copy of the icons to keep
>in your local web directory, and change the HTML fragment above to
>reference your local image rather than the one on this server.
>Linking to this result
>
>If you would like to create a link to this page (i.e., this validation
>result) to make it easier to revalidate this page in the future or to
>allow others to validate your page, the URI is <http://
>validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cwdjr.net
>%2Fvideo4%2FtestYT.html;ss=1> (or you can just add the current page to
>your bookmarks or hotlist).
>Validating CSS Style Sheets
>
>If you use CSS in your document, you can check it using the W3C CSS
>Validation Service.
>
>? Top
>Source Listing
>
>Below is the source input I used for this validation:
>
> 1. <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">
> 2. <html lang="en">
> 3. <head>
> 4. <title>testYT</title>
> 5. <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/
>html;charset=iso-8859-1">
> 6. <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css">
> 7.
> 8. <style type="text/css">
> 9. a:active {color: #888800; background-color: #ffffff}
> 10. a:visited {color: #008800;background-color: #ffffff}
> 11. a:link {color: #880000;background-color: #ffffff}
> 12. p {font-size:100%;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;background-
>color: #ffffff}
> 13. p.threered {font-size:100%;color:#880000;font-
>weight:bold;background-color: #ffffff}
> 14. p.h {font-size:125%;text-align:center;color: #990033;background-
>color: #000000;font-weight:bold}
> 15. body {margin-left:2%;margin-right:2%;margin-top:2%;margin-bottom:
>2%;background-color:#000000;color:#ffffff}
> 16. </style>
> 17. </head>
> 18. <body>
> 19. <p class="h">
> 20. YT TEST
> 21. </p>
> 22.
> 23. <div style="text-align:center">
> 24. <!--[if IE]>
> 25. <object classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000"
>codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/
>swflash.cab#version=6,0,29,0" width="425" height="344" >
> 26. <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/
>x8uob0M3z2I&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1">
> 27. <param name="quality" value="high">
> 28. <param name="bgcolor" value="#000000">
> 29. <param name="autoplay" value="false">
> 30. <param name="loop" value="false"><param name="wmode"
>value="transparent">
> 31. </object>
> 32. <![endif]-->
> 33. <!--[if !IE]>
> 34. <-->
> 35. <object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://
>www.youtube.com/v/x8uob0M3z2I&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" width="425"
>height="344">
> 36. <param name="quality" value="high"><param name="bgcolor"
>value="#000000">
> 37. <param name="autoplay" value="false"><param name="loop"
>value="false">
> 38. <param name="wmode" value="transparent">
> 39. </object>
> 40. <!-->
> 41. <![endif]-->
> 42. </div>
> 43.
> 44. </body>
> 45. </html>
>
>_________________________________________________ ___________________
>
>W3C CSS Validator results for http://www.cwdjr.net/video4/testYT.html
>(CSS level 3)
>Congratulations! No Error Found.
>
>This document validates as CSS level 3 !
>
>To show your readers that you've taken the care to create an
>interoperable Web page, you may display this icon on any page that
>validates. Here is the XHTML you could use to add this icon to your
>Web page:
>Valid CSS!
>
><p>
> <a href="http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/">
> <img style="border:0;width:88px;height:31px"
> src="http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/images/vcss"
> alt="Valid CSS!" />
> </a>
></p>
>
>
>Valid CSS!
>
><p>
><a href="http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/">
> <img style="border:0;width:88px;height:31px"
> src="http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/images/vcss-blue"
> alt="Valid CSS!" />
></a>
></p>
>
>
>(close the img tag with > instead of /> if using HTML <= 4.01)
>
>If you like, you can download a copy of this image to keep in your
>local web directory, and change the XHTML fragment above to reference
>your local image rather than the one on this server.
>
>If you would like to create a link to this page (i.e., this validation
>result) to make it easier to re-validate this page in the future or to
>allow others to validate your page, the URI is:
>
>http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...=all&warning=2
>or
>http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/check/referer (for HTML/XML
>document only)


Well I have decided to change the look.
Kind of taking your hint, I revised it now so that instead of waiting
endlessly for all the videos to load, you will now see the text and
one single iframe. "click to load" brings up the video in the iframe.
So you will now only see one video at a time.

And cut way back on the youtube generated errors.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 07:37:13 GMT, "rf" <> wrote:

>
>"Neredbojias" <> wrote in message
>news:Xns9B3CF305F39Eneredbojiasnano@194.177.96.78 ...
>> On 19 Oct 2008, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:
>
>> I quite agree with your conclusion but nevertheless the page loaded for
>> me surprisingly fast - appx. 6 seconds first time. Whatever vid I
>> clicked on started immediately and several ran simultaneously although
>> I didn't run more than 4 or test too extensively.
>
>It loaded almost immediately for me.
>
>Then again however flashblock stopped any of those videos from even
>initialising and all I saw was the polite f asking if I wanted to view this
>crap
>
>Nice stuff, this flashblock. I waste my download bandwidth *only* if I
>decide to and not at the whim of some web "designer".
>

Thanks for the feedback. With the newer version now you only see one
video at a time. No more waiting around for youtube to load the entire
set.

On Oct 20, 1:53*am, Neredbojias <neredboj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 Oct 2008, cwdjrxyz <spamtr...@cwdjr.info> wrote:
>
>
>
> > No my script was on and I did read what you posted in your home tab.
> > I also have a download connection of over 5 mbps at the moment when
> > downloading from a server that is not overloaded. It is still taking
> > a long time for the first video in the Louisiana section to show up
> > and even longer for the second video. It could well be that you have
> > several of these videos in your computer temporary cache. I have
> > often observed that downloading can appear to be be much faster the
> > second time around once it is in the temporary cache of the viewing
> > computer. The flash YouTube videos use flv/swf with the flv flash
> > video file being much larger than the swf file which just contains
> > the player, logos etc. Connecting to the swf file starts the flv
> > downloading to the temporary cache of the browser. It is always
> > possible that there is something slowing down the connection from
> > your server to my browser, but if so it has been going on all
> > afternoon. In any event, selecting the video you want first, sending
> > that choice to the server via php form, and having the server send
> > the browser only the code for the video chosen to be viewed will give
> > the fastest possible response.
>
> I quite agree with your conclusion but nevertheless the page loaded for
> me surprisingly fast - appx. 6 seconds first time. *Whatever vid I
> clicked on started immediately and several ran simultaneously although
> I didn't run more than 4 or test too extensively.

There is one other consideration. Not only are you linking to the page
owner's site but also to the YouTube site, because the YouTube video
is hot linked. Download from YouTube is not always the fastest, as you
can judge by the progress of the load bar which also includes a
pointer for the current play time of the video. Hot linking to YouTube
is very common, and they make it very easy to do so. In the past hot
linking in general was considered band width theft in many quarters,
but YouTube may not mind because it exposes more of their ads that
make their money. However, you can cut out any possible bottle necks
from hot linking to YouTube by downloading the flv instead. There are
programs to grab a flv. Also the most recent Real Player 11 version
will grab a flv on IE and Firefox 3. For a short time Real quit
working on Firefox just after they upgraded to 3. However Real 11 was
updated within the past several days, and the most recent version will
again grab a flv. Now several players including Real 11 will play an
isolated flv without association with a swf container file. However,
to work on most computers, it is quite possible to input the flv into
some flash video encoders and generate new custom flv/swf files. One
can build a player in many ways. For instance one can build a player
that does not autostart, that does or does not start downloading the
flv to the browser temporary cache when the page is downloaded to the
browser etc. All of this can come in handy when you have several
videos on a page that are a download hog. Since I seldom use YouTube
videos, I do not know if they would approve of this or not. Since ads
might be lost, they might not like it. Anyway, if you have a new flv/
swf stored on your server rather than from a hot link to YouTube, you
have one less potential source of slowness in download, and if YouTube
removes the video, no problem.

On 20 Oct 2008, "rf" <> wrote:

> "Neredbojias" <> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B3CF305F39Eneredbojiasnano@194.177.96.78. ..
>> On 19 Oct 2008, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:
>
>> I quite agree with your conclusion but nevertheless the page loaded
>> for me surprisingly fast - appx. 6 seconds first time. Whatever vid
>> I clicked on started immediately and several ran simultaneously
>> although I didn't run more than 4 or test too extensively.
>
> It loaded almost immediately for me.
>
> Then again however flashblock stopped any of those videos from even
> initialising and all I saw was the polite f asking if I wanted to
> view this crap
>
> Nice stuff, this flashblock. I waste my download bandwidth *only* if
> I decide to and not at the whim of some web "designer".

Yeah, flashblock sounds good to me, too, but since I've drastically
reduced my general browsing of late and none of the dozen or so sites I
still frequent promotes autoload Flash vids, I don't really need it.
If I was as interested in The Net as I used to be even a year ago, I
would surely install it.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/