I notice that if I have another language in my project and change the HTML content file it will work on my computer but if I upload to the server it keeps the old HTML.
It seems to work if I modify the .resx resource file even if I don't make any changes, just add a space for example, then save, then upload also.
Why is this? I'm guessing that the HTML is cached somewhere, more importantly how can I upload a large batch of updated translations, without having to modify each .resx file??? I have a lot of Japanese
Thanks in advance
But .resx files needs to be compiled. That is why only upload doesn't work.
I just completed a project translating an existing site into several languages.
I did this using webforms with c# codebehind. Hope my answers can assist you...
I used RESX files to store the different language translations (index.aspx.fr-CA.resx for example) and in the c# code behind you would have to use 'protect override void InitializeCulture()' method to have the RESX files come into play. Do you have this setup?
I found it easily for me to create the multiple languages as such -- I would generate the local resource (after tagging the static content in tags) and then copy that generated RESX file, paste and rename it to the other language. The RESX file is an XML and in the VS it creates an easy to edit table view to copy and paste translated languages (or alternatively you can use tools such as RESX Manager -see link below). What I did, to keep it convenient to edit the syntax of different languages and modify, was take my existing content text and run it through Google or Bing translator and paste the translated text into the RESX files...
If your looking for something that will automatically translate your site for you and then re displays in an iframe, you can look into Bing Translation API http://www.microsoft.com/web/post/using-the-free-bing-translation-apis but in my case, this was not ideal as the translations would not take into account the syntax of different languages and you can not go in and edit after someone that speaks and is familiar with sites in that language tells you that it makes no sense! =P
Also this tool is very helpful if you already have existing RESX files and you will need to modify an section on one language, you can edit in the others easily. http://resxmanager.com/ its free for non-commercial use. It's easy to setup and can definitely safe you time when you get going.
Related
Is it possible to use the Lightbox2 script to display all photos from a given directory instead of listing each photo in the html?
This is really just a yes or no question, but please feel free to explain. I want to know if this is possible and if I should spend my time trying to figure it out. Thanks for the help.
No, Lightbox2 is written in JavaScript.
When used on a webpage, JavaScript is a client-side scripting language.
This means that the code executes on your web browser, and only has access to data the web browser makes available to it.
For more info: Client-side scripting
You need to use a server-side language (PHP, ASP.NET, etc.) to work with the server-side directories.
Here is an answer to a similar question, with a suggestion to create an index file w/ all the image file names that you could then parse with JavaScript. I don't think it would be much more efficient than manually adding img elements though.
Is there a way to return a list of all the image file names from a folder using only Javascript?
I developed a (small) company website in Visual Studio, and I'm addicted to learning more. I really just have two simple questions that I can't google.
1 - Asp:hyperlinks:
What is the purpose of an asp.hyperlink? I know I can't use these in my resource files -- I have to convert 'em all back to html links. At first, asp:hyperlinks looked sophisticated, so I made all my links asp:hyperlinks. Now I'm reverting back. What's the purpose of an asp:hyperlink, if any?
2 - Resource Files and strings:
In localizing my website, I have found that I'm putting the .master resource files in the directory's App_LocalResources folder VS created, because you can't change the top line stuff in a .master file and put a culture/uiculture in there. But all of my regular .aspx pages are going into the root App_GlobalResources folder into 1 of 4 language resource files (de, es-mx, fr, en). I'm making 2 or 3 strings per .aspx page. So when you have 47 pages in your website, that's about 100 strings on a resource page.
I just learned about all of the resources stuff from this forum and MSDN tutorials, so I have to ask, 'cause it's a lot of work. Is this okay? Is it normal? Am I going about this the wrong way?
I've never used resources, so can't comment on that.
Differences between asp:hyperlink and a tag that I know of:
asp:hyperlink is converted to an A tag by the ASP.NET engine when output to the browser.
It is possible asp:hyperlink could make browser specific adjustments, to overcome browser bugs/etc.. which is kind of the point of ASP.NET, or at least one of them. If not already in it, they could be added later, and by using those objects you'll get that when/if added.
Both can be used in code behind (you can set runat="server" for an A tag), but the asp:hyperlink has better compile-time checking in most cases -- strong type-casting for more items vs generic objects.
asp:hyperlinks are easier to get HTML bloat, but only if used with a poor design. For example, it is easy to set font styles and colors on them.. but I wouldn't, since that generates in-line styles that are usually pretty bloated compared to what you would do by hand or in a CSS file.
asp:hyperlinks support the "~/Folder/File.ext" syntax for the TargetUrl (href), which is nice in some projects if you use a lot of different URLs and sub-folders and want the server to handle mapping in a "smart" way.
The purpose of is to display a link to another webpage.
With the resource files, since you're not a programmer and just developing a small program, use something you're comfortable with. Resource files are easy to use for beginners when you want to localize your web content -- and yes, it's normal to be adding many strings if you need them.
For #1
Using a hyperlink control over just a piece of text will allow you to access the control at runtime and manipulate its contents if you want to change the link dynamically, if you have static links that will never change then its simpler to just use plain text ie. <a href=''>
We're investigating if it's possible to have the following: A webpage with multiple 'folders' to which a user can drag & drop a files. It's meant to be used as an interface to upload scanned documents to an archive.
For example, we would have page that states: 'Quotes', 'Invoices' & 'Misc'. Depending on the sort of document the user would drag & drop the file from the local file system to one of these three folders. It should then upload the file to the correct folder on the web server.
Is this possible, and if it is, any existing solutions using ASP.NET?
You can use modern browsers HTML5 functionalities to do so. A detailed explanation here:
http://www.useragentman.com/blog/2010/01/10/cross-browser-html5-drag-and-drop/
There is also the jQuery plugin: https://github.com/weixiyen/jquery-filedrop This one is a bit bogus (truncates files with accents like in french, doesn't handle correctly several drop areas in the same page, ...), but are easy to fix (I sent a fixed version to the author weeks ago, but didn't get any feedback...)
With some Ajax and the correct server-side solution, it works like a charm. I don't know any .NET solution, though.
Best,
You could use a silverlight app or a java applet, but those are the only solutions that I know of... The users would obviously need to have silverlight or the jre installed.
I've been having a heckuva time with this problem, and there seems to be a lot of noise out there in search engines in getting to the bottom of it, so forgive me if I've missed a silver bullet out there.
The base need is that I have to generate a PDF document that has both static and dynamic elements. I started to do this by having a PDF template with all the static content, and then I wanted to inject various dynamic elements into it. The problem is that PDFs are not meant to be manipulated that way, and depending on the size of the dynamic text I put in there, might overflow text on other pages. I was using iTextSharp but can't get past this problem.
A possible fallback is to generate a DOCX, which I've done before, and then convert it into a PDF on the backend. The only libraries I've found to do this are paid apps (like Aspose). There are examples out there that convert to PDF without these libraries, but they seem to require a client-side application. I'm doing this via IIS.
To make a long story longer...are there free libraries that will convert a DOCX file to a PDF server-side without launching client applications to do so?
There are a few choices here:
build a COM interop class that will perform read and 'Save As' functions on your .docx. The MSDN link you gave doesn't require to be run client-side, but rather have the Office assemblies in the GAC or in your ASP.NET's bin directory.
buy a third party component to do the work for you. Here's just one example with no guarantees.
I'm not familiar with any good free ones, but we used Aspose.Words to achieve something similar to what you describe. We keep Word templates with static text and mail-merge fields. The templates can be regular Word documents, they don't have to be .dot templates. Mail-merge fields can be either single fields or repeatable data in tables so you can easily generate pretty complex documents without doing dynamic document editing. (Which is always an option)
Using Aspose for this was so friction free that I would suggest using Aspose unless the cost (which is significant) is a show-stopper. The support is also good which is always an added bonus.
There are always some caveats...
I would have liked more control over the PDF compatability of the generated PDFs. We had some issues with older clients reading the generated PDFs.
Mail-merge is not fun. Complex mail-merge expressions was time consuming to get right.
I just found very simple solution to convert any files from command-line using LibreOffice:
soffice.exe --headless --convert-to pdf file.xls
(google for the rest)
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 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm working on a project which stores single images and text files in one place, like a time capsule. Now, most every project can be saved as one file, like DOC, PPT, and ODF. But complete web pages can't -- they're saved as a separate HTML file and data folder. I want to save a web page in a single archive, and while there are several solutions, there's no "standard". Which is the best format for HTML archives?
Microsoft has MHTML -- basically a file encoded exactly as a MIME HTML email message. It's already based on an existing standard, and MHTML as its own was proposed as rfc2557. This is a great idea and it's been around forever, except it's been a "proposed standard" since 1999. Plus, implementations other than IE's are just cumbersome. IE and Opera support it; Firefox and Safari with a cumbersome extension.
Mozilla has Mozilla Archive Format -- basically a ZIP file with the markup and images, with metadata saved as RDF. It's an awesome idea -- Winamp does this for skins, and ODF and OOXML for their embedded images. I love this, except, 1. Nobody else except Mozilla uses it, 2. The only extension supporting it wasn't updated since Firefox 1.5.
Data URIs are becoming more popular. Instead of referencing an external location a la MHTML or MAF, you encode the file straight into the HTML markup as base64. Depending on your view, it's streamlined since the files are right where the markup is. However, support is still somewhat weak. Firefox, Opera, and Safari support it without gaffes; IE, the market leader, only started supporting it at IE8, and even then with limits.
Then of course, there's "Save complete webpage" where the HTML markup is saved as "savedpage.html" and the files in a separate "savedpage_files" folder. Afaik, everyone does this. It's well supported. But having to handle two separate elements is not simple and streamlined at all. My project needs to have them in a single archive.
Keeping in mind browser support and ease of editing the page, what do you think's the best way to save web pages in a single archive? What would be best as a "standard"? Or should I just buckle down and deal with the HTML file and separate folder? For the sake of my project, I could support that, but I'd best avoid it.
My favourite is the ZIP format. Because:
It is very well sutied for the purpose
It is well documented
There a a lot of implementations available for creating or reading them
A user can easily extract single files, change them and put them back in the archive
Almost every major Operating System (Windows, Mac and most linux) have a ZIP program built in
The alternatives all have some flaw:
With MHTMl, you can not easily edit.
With data URI's, I don't know how difficult the implementation would be. (With ZIP, even I could do it in PHP, 3 years ago...)
The option to store things as seperate files just has far too many things that could go wrong and mess up your archive.
It is not only question of file format. Another crucial question is what exactly you want to store? Is it:
store whole page as it is with all referenced resources - images,
CSS and javascript?
to capture page as it was rendered at some point in time; a static
image of some rendered state of web page DOM?
Most current "save page as" functionality in browser, be it to MAF or MHTML or file+dir, attempts the first way. This is ultimately flawed approach.
Don't forget web pages there days are rather local applications then a static document you can easily store. Potential issues:
one page is in fact several pages build dynamically by JS, user interaction is needed
to get it to desired state
AJAX applications can do remote communication with remote service rendering it
unusable for offline view.
Hidden links in javascript code. Such resource is then not part of stored page.
Even parsing JS code may not discover them. You need to run the code.
Even position of basic html elements may be recomputed may be computed dynamically by
JS and it is not always possible/easy to recreate it locally.
You would need some sort of JS memory dump and load this to get page to desired state
you hoped to store
And many many more issues...
Check Chrome SingleFile extension. It stores a web page to one html file with images inlined using already mentioned data URIs. I haven't tested it much so I cannot say how well it handles "volatile" ajax pages.
PDFs are supported on nearly all browsers on nearly all platforms and store content and images in a single file. They can be edited with the right tools. This is almost definitely not ideal, but it's an option to consider.
Use a zip file.
You could always make a program/script that extracts the zip file to a temp directory and loads the index.html file in your browser. You could even use an index.ini/txt file to specify the file that should be loaded when extracting.
Basically, you want something like the Mozilla Archive format, but without the unnecessary rdf crap just to specify what file to load.
MHT files are good, but they usually use base64 to embed files, which will make the file size bigger than it should be (data URIs are the same way). You can add attachments as binary, but you'll have to manually do that with a hex editor or create a tool and support for it by clients might not be as good.
Of course, if you want to use what browsers generate, MHT (Opera and IE at least) might be better.
i see no excuse to use anything other than a zipfile
Well, if browser support and ease of editing are the biggest concerns I think you are stuck with the file+directory approach unless you are willing to provide an editor for the single file format and live with not very good support in browsers.
You can create a single file by compressing the contents. You can also create a parent directory to ease handling.
The problem is that html is bottoms up not top down. Look at your file name which saved on my box as "What's the best "file format" for saving complete web pages (images, etc.) in a single archive? - Stack Overflow.html"
Just add a '|' and one has trouble doing copy and paste backups to a spare drive. In the end you end up. chopping the file name in order to save it. Dozens/ perhaps hundreds of identical index.html or index.php are cluttering my drives.
The partial solution is to write you own CMS and use scripts to map all relevant files to a flat file database - then use fileName, size, mtime and md5 to get a unique Id for each file. Create a flat file index permitting 100k or 1000k records. The goal is to write once and use many times. So you need a real CMS you need a unique id based on content (eg index8765432.html) that goes in your files_archive. Ditto for the others. Then you can non-destructively symlink from the saved original html to the files_archive and just recreate the file using a php or alternative script if need be. Don't know if it will work as I'm at the same point you're at - maybe in a week will know for sure. The more useful approach is to have a top down structure based on your business or personal wants and related tasks. So your files might be organized top down but external ones bottom up to preserve the original content. My interest is in Web 3.0 services and the closer you get to machine to machine interaction the greater the need to structure the information. Maybe time to rethink the idea of bundling everything into a single file. So you have hundreds of main.css why bundle when a top down solution might let you modify one file instead of hundreds.