Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I have two related questions. Is font-awesome used to serve commercial fonts, or just icons? And either way, how many file(s) are needed to serve font(s) using font-awesome (file names are also welcome)?
As explanation: my client has a commercial webfont license on their website, and wants me to use it in an HTML5 'app' (interactive visuals) that will be embedded on their site. I don't have access to their site / domain / server, but I need to provide the code so it will work with their font libraries. They have given me this link to font-awesome and said that is all I need to do so.
https://maxcdn.bootstrapcdn.com/font-awesome/4.3.0/css/font-awesome.min.css
I am pretty sure there must be at least one other CSS file needed, and maybe other details. I am not the HTML5 developer myself, but I have a good handle on the technology of this and develop in several other software languages. He is used to converting non-commercial fonts online, but not using this type of service.
I cannot find any docs or examples of font-awesome being used this way, pretty much only for icons. I would really appreciate knowing exactly what to ask for, or even if they are giving me the right path to follow, since the corporate communication chain doesn't give me access to their web site developer.
FontAwesome needs one css file and 6 font files.
The link above is a css which gets those 6 font files on that cdn server. (look at the top of that file)
You can embed that link or provide the files yourself by downloading them.
You can go to http://fontawesome.io/get-started/ and download it to see for yourself.
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I have recently built a website based on WordPress. I got a free theme from a source in Pakistan.
I have to use this theme because it perfectly serves my purpose. But I want to know that if this theme is quietly establishing a connection with another server and sending my data.
How can I detect that my website is internally sending some codes to the server of developer of theme? Also, I need to know what servers are being communicated with — like, if any image is getting loaded from their server, any code is imported from their server, or anything else is being fetched from their server to run.
Since you have the source code, then you can simply look what this theme does - basically theme should only be HTML and CSS (or mostly it). If there is too much suspicious PHP of Javascript I wouldn't use it.
If you want to see if it connects to some outside sources, run it in your controlled environment and use some network sniffing tool like Wireshark for example.
Generally speaking - if you don't trust the source where you got your theme and you are not good enough in programming to check for malicious code yourselves, don't use it!
I would recommend downloading some of themes provided directly by wordpress.org - those should be safe.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
On my current project I am using a font which is currently hosted on googleapis.com. The font is "free" so I can get a copy and put it on my server.
My question is; is there any benefit to hosting it on Google vs having it on my own server? I've already got two other paid fonts hosted on my own server (using #font-face with fallbacks). So I was thinking of bringing the other font across, having it all in one place.
But I wasnt sure if there is anything I'm not considering? Is google fonts significantly faster/better performance etc?
Google could be faster than your server depending on your server's bandwidth and load. However some negatives to hosting on google are:
The Item could be removed leading to problems with your site
googleapis.com could be an extra DNS lookup adding time to your site's load process
I personally hate hotlinking
Positives:
If dns entry is caches potentially faster proformance
Less data use to your server
A problem I've encountered with self hosting google fonts is that google serves different woff files for different OS and Browsers, sometimes even with the same name. This is due to different type rendering engines in Windows and OS that make perceptible differences in fonts width's between, for example, Chrome in Windows and Chrome in Mac. Let's say it's more complicated to self host fonts cross Browsers and os. Here is an interesting project focused on this type of subtile problems.
On the other hand it could be important to self host fonts in security-relevant sites.
Perhaps this would have merited only a comment, but I can not do it yet.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
It's my second ignorant question for today, this one even more ignorant than the first.
Why wouldn't you use Wordpress to build Twitter, eBay, Amazon, or [you name any other "application" type website]?
There are some big name websites using Wordpress (supposedly) like Network Solutions. It's unclear to me how much of their website actually runs on Wordpress. Most of these sites appear to be more news or blog oriented. I'm guessing they use Wordpress to post "static" content but probably build other application features outside of wordpress. For example, do you think Network Solutions domain lookup and purchasing features are built in Wordpress?
But the real question here I guess is what type of website would you build in Wordpress, Concrete5, Joomla, or Drupal? It seems like a really stupid question but would you build a custom web app using CMS?
CMS' are really good if you require ease of use, 'simple' customisability, or (in the case of wordpress) are constantly updating. Services such as eBay or Twitter wouldn't make sense on one of these platforms as there would be a lot of proprietary code in order to make there service work and be unique - this is what CMS' fall down on. You rely on people (or yourself) to build plugins to extend the original functionality. With a ground up website, you lose all the 'flab' (i.e. excess code and functionality that you may never use) and have a much more managable system.
Behind all the sites you mention would be some kind of in-house built CMS - it just wouldn't make sense for these companies to use publically available systems.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed last year.
Improve this question
I would like to give web designers autonomy to publish web pages but letting them to edit aspx files is a serious security risk as they don't have the required programming skills.
I was thinking about two approaches:
They are only able to edit html files and call services with ajax;
Let them to edit xslt files associated to services that return xml.
But both have a drawback: limited use of templates.
How would you deal with this situation?
If the developer is on his own domain then its safe to give him full access to JavaScript. However if he is sharing this domain then by giving him access to javascript you open the door to XSS. This allows the publisher to hijack other user accounts (usually by access document.cookie, but there are other same-origin policy abuses). One possilbity is to use Html Purifier, which prevents javascript all together.
There is a better alternative and that is a Google-Caja, which places restrictions on the javascript a developer can execute. This is important for apps written for social networking sites.
This is an issue that's already been addressed in most CMS systems. Have a look at joomla, drupal, SharePoint, etc etc.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I am wondering if there are any hosts or if I can host my file (JS & CSS) on Google so that they are cached and load real quick (due to CDN and gzip).
A number of my customers use these files and I would prefer if they could somehow include this to file to receive the JS file. Ideally with filename.js?publickey=sdfgsdfg (which will be tied to a particular domain name).
The problem is that my hosting needs are very small- only about 100kb.
Any suggestions? My problem is that the customers using the JS & CSS file, have no clue about gzipping content or caching (as their shared hosts do not support it), as a result causes the JS/CSS to take forever to load. Am wondering if I can leverage an existing free service, or I do not mind paying either.
CDNJS.com allows you to submit a pull request to their GitHub account to get a JavaScript library on their CDN. I've been attempting to get a CSS library added on their forum old and abandoned forum.
If you're comfortable with the Amazon cloud platform, you can use CloudFront. You don't need to use it with S3, but you can.
You can try Amazon AWS CloudFront for quick content delivery. Amazon CloudFront works seamlessly with any origin server, which stores the original, definitive versions of your files.
Here comes the JQGrid CDN Link
http://www.jsdelivr.com/#!jqgrid
Use Cloudflare. It will take care of all your JS CSS files, with added security to your whole system.
Try SimpleCDN. You can store your files very cheap and the traffic is also not that expensive. Number of people have complained to their service - I have no objections.