I am having trouble figuring out a way to support #font-face having the font hosted on a different server/domain than mine. The way our server works - I have NO access to our server configuration files. I can only access a CSS/JS files, and am unable to then load font files to our server (I know...).
Ideally, I would like to reference the font(s) on the site I am branding from (I replicate a website design onto our product so that they can integrate it into their site relatively seamlessly). Reading through the following article:
http://www.unseenrevolution.com/solution-firefox-font-face-cross-domain-problem/
would I be able to utilize a similar method if I have the owner of the other domain add our domain to their HTACCESS file? I apologize if the question seems useless, but I am having trouble understanding how this works clearly - and I don't want to recommend a solution that won't work anyway.
Any help?
Related
In terms of site optimization and speed; is it better to include a font locally or use a css #import? (I'm using google's web-fonts)
You will need to do a test on your own. The simplest way to do so is to use a developer tools console in your browser and to check a network section to see how how long it takes for the files to be loaded. It is possible that your web server may dish out files slower or faster than google.
Additionally, some browsers, like Firefox, by default, may not include font files downloaded from a different domain. To make sure your site renders as expected, I would serve font files from within the domain that the user visits.
I have been using Helicon to rewrite my URLs and they are in a file htaccess (no dot). The rewrite goes something like:
RewriteRule /e-commerce /e-commerce.asp [I,U]
I have read a few answers, starting with How to Determine the Installed ASP.NET Version of Host from a Web Page. I ran the page, and it displayed 2.0.50727.3643
A little history so maybe one can be gentle. I was a Microsoft Frontpage MVP, but disliked their Frontpage Server Extensions (FPSE). Some hosting companies are still using them, but the last ones were back in 2002.
I was a Microsoft guy. So I went with Microsoft servers and started using ASP includes. Then I came across Helicon - and used it for 4-5 yrs. Some of my sites are having no issues, but some of them are. And my new prices along with new hardware for credit card processing is out and I really need help (BTW, I looked for an e-commerce section but found nothing if y'all have one, I'll be more than happy to help).
I do not even know what is the file name I should be using and the information that goes in there.
Rename a file in C#
How to rename a file in .NET?
Rewriting URLs in ASP.NET/C#
Custom Url Rewriting in asp.net
I have seen several file names but I do not know which one to use. I am sure there is a question out there that matches mine, but after looking for several hours, I am hoping some of the experts will be able to help me out.
Thank you!
You should give a try to URLRewriter.Net. It's very easy to integrate into asp.net project. Instead of IIS level it implements url rewriting at asp.net level.
I've currently got a reasonably large site up that i've been asked to make changes to.
Currently To login to this site you need to go to:
www.example.com/folder/loginpage.html
This site is only accessible internally at this time and it is unlikely to ever be accessible externally.
We would like to, however, be able to direct external users to a sub-directory on the site (a 'survey' form) which is located in
www.example.com/folder/subfolder/survey.html
This survey writes its results back to the main application and i believe they are integrated tightly.
We initially tried the idea of using an additional IIS7 box as a reverse proxy however it is quite confusing to me, i'm not very familiar with IIS/ARR and the other features required (i'm mostly familiar with networking). I did try and follow a number of tutorials but didn't get very far. I'd like to avoid it if possible.
How can I, using IIS7 (this site is in ASP.NET) restrict external users from accessing anything other than the survey pages (there are a few included files necessary as well)?
Is it possible to make www.example.com/folder/subfolder/survey.html a 'website' in-itself so that i can publish a URL like survey.example.com externally?
I've come across other examples where access is restricted from specific pages but the root of the site is still accessible
ie
www.eg.com/ is allowed but www.eg.com/admin.aspx is denied. I'd like to the the reverse in effect, and if possible, hide the 'true' url.
Hope someone can help! If using a reverse proxy is possible i'm happy to do it but i'd need detailed instructions.
Thanks for reading,
Much appreciated!
Edit: Sorry all, I'm new to stackoverflow, indeed I've just realised that there are several other sub-communities. Is it more appropriate to ask this in a different community? If so, which one?
Thanks!
I'm building a website that stores a number of articles. The URL for each articles implements URL routing in the form /Articles/{categoryid}/{articleslug}.
Some articles have links to a graphics file. The link does not specify the full path so I'm storing the graphics file at /Articles/{categoryid}/{articleslug}/graphic.jpg.
This works fine on my desktop. But when I deployed the site to a shared hosting account, the behavior is different.
Now, the link only works if I store the graphics file at /Articles/{categoryid}/graphic.jpg. In other words, on my desktop, the {articleslug} is assumed to be a directory, but on the web it is assumed to be the name of the current page.
Does anyone know why the behavior changes? You can seen an example at http://www.blackbeltcoder.com/Articles/asp/creating-website-thumbnails-in-asp-net. Both the screenshot and download link near the top are broken links.
Without knowing more, it seems like the most likely cause would be a different version or configuration of IIS. The behavior of the web host makes all kinds of sense; the behavior of your desktop is confusing to me. Is your desktop doing a redirect from /Articles/{categoryid}/{articleslug} to /Articles/{categoryid}/{articleslug}/? Can you use Fiddler etc to see if the browser formats the GET request differently?
Thanks for the input. There probably wasn't enough information here for anyone to resolve this unless they've specifically seen the issue already.
At any rate, I was able to resolve it myself and I describe the resolution in a related question I posted at Relative Links with Extension-less URLs.
Thanks.
I've seen a lot of dynamic website through the internet that their pages are in html or htm format . I don't get it why is that ? And how they do that ?
Just look at this website : http://www.realmadrid.com/cs/Satellite/en/Home.htm
What you see in the URL can be set at will by the people running the web site. The technique is called URL rewriting.
How
On Apache, the most popular solution to that is the mod_rewrite module.
Seeing as you've tagged ASP.NET: As far as I know, ASP.NET has only limited rewriting support out of the box. This blog entry promises a complete URL rewriting solution in ASP 2.0
Why
As for the why, there is no compelling technical reason to do this.
It's just that htm and html are the recognized standard extensions for HTML content, and many (including myself) think they simply look nicer than .php, .php5, .asp, .aspx and so on.
Also, as Adam Pope points out in his answer, this makes it less obvious which server side technology/language is used.
The .html/.htm extension has the additional effect that if you save it to disk, it is usually automatically connected with your installed browser.
Maybe (a very big maybe) there are very stupid simple client programs around that recognize that they have to parse HTML by looking at the extension. But that would be a blatant violation of rules and was hopefully last seen in 1994. Anyway, I don't think this is the case any more.
There are a number of potential reasons, these may include:
They could be trying to hide the technology they built the site with
They could be serving a cached version of a page which was written out to HTML.
They could simply perceive it to look friendlier to the user
They might be using a server-side scripting language like PHP or ASP. You can configure what file extensions get parsed by the language by editing the web server configuration files.
For example in PHP the default extension is .php but you could configure the server to use .html, that would mean any files with the .html extension could contain PHP code they would get parsed before the page is sent to the clients web browser.
This is generally not recommend as it adds an overhead and .html pages that don't have any PHP would be parsed by the PHP engine anyway which is slower then serving pages direct to the browser.
The other way would be to use some form of URL rewriting. See URL Rewriting in ASP.NET
Another reason is SEO(Search engine optimization). Many search engines like html pages and many guys（I mean some SEO specialists) think the html can improve the rank of their content in search engine.
One possibility is just historical reasons. Pages that started static, now are generated dynamically, but sites don't want to break old customer's favorites.
They keep some pages as html because their content is not supposed to change frequently or not at all.
But you should also keep in mind the fact that some sites are dynamic but they change the page extention to html but original page remains same eg php or aspx, etc using htaccess or some frameworks like codeigniter etc.