As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
Any suggestions?
Possibly something very interactive that I can multiple-select files. Thanks!
plupload - http://www.plupload.com/
supports multiple uploads in every type except basic html4
Allows uploads using HTML5, gears, flash, silverlight, BrowserPlus or plain on HTML4
Uploading files with Ajax isn't possible due to security reasons. There is a work-around with posting files to an iframe, but you can't select multiple files this way.
The solution lies in flash. The two most common flash uploaders are:
swfupload - http://swfupload.org/
uploadify - http://www.uploadify.com/ (jQuery only)
Another option is Uber-Uploader I have used it and it works well with a progress bar.
Or you could use the System.Web.UI.WebControls.FileUpload class in Asp.Net
At this point i'd stay away from flash plugins.
I'd use HTML5 uploader instead like this one:valums uploader
Sure - you'll be able to select multiple files in modern browsers only, otherwise - it'll be file by file. but hey - if person doesn't care about upgrading to newer browsers - they really probably don't know how to Ctrl+click anyways.
Flash doesn't send cookies correctly (it sends IE cookies even if you use firefox or google chrome). So - you'll lose cookies and thus sessions. There is a workaround - to send PHPSESSID in POST requests - but it simply opens door wide open for session fixation.
Related
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
I'm diving into web design and development. I wrote a couple of website (just client code) from scratch, starting with just a touch index.html. Is this practice still used or most of the web is made out of templates, Wordpress or some other expedient?
I think 3 things are enough to create good websites (showcase websites or small web app):
Server-side = Understanding a CMS , its structure, and its core functions + Having
basic server language notions. In the case of this OP (Wordpress-PHP combination is good).
Client-side : CSS3 + HTML5 + Javascript (Jquery or equivalent).
AJAX as a 'bridge' between the two sides.
Doing things from scratch without using a CMS is good for knowledge but requires more time.
I think there are 2 questions here:
1) Is this practice still used?
Yes, you just used it. Browsers will support it, so someone out there will be doing it.
2) Is most of the web made out of templates, Wordpress, etc...
Yes, I would think so.
You could go the other direction and bypass a web server and create a program that responds directly to HTTP requests on port 80, but using a webserver saves you the trouble of programming and allows you to work with files. Using something other than touch index.html is just another step beyond that, using a more expedient way to get to the html files you need.
It's not saying that all websites must be dynamic - for example, my own blog is written with middleman, which is very like writing a Rails app except that you compile the app into static HTML files. It's just so much easier to write in something like Markdown that gets generated to a nice page instead of having to edit the HTML by hand.
One rule : if you are building a quite complex website, you will spend plenty of time to do something (or many things) you could have done themn in seconds.
Writing websites from scratch is a student task/homework.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
The question is simple: it is a good practice we have one "master CSS file" (the same concept of master pages) and, for each page, one specific and unique CSS file?
I ask this because I think that it's useless to have very different code on a page that will not use it — can you all understand me?
From a UI point of view...
Use separate CSS if:
You have almost independent pages with less common stuff
You need to reuse specific pages in different projects
Use single CSS if:
You have lot of common styles
The greatest advantage when using one master CSS file than having a master and several specific CSS files is that
You save on HTTP request times and resources. If you have several files, you need to call your server a few times and waste on the metadata.
Everything is in one place, you get to edit them more easily. CSS becomes more managable for your website.
Caching helps greatly.
The redundant / unused style rules in your master file may be too little to matter much.
In my opinion it is best to have as less number of stylesheet (css) and JavaScript files as possible to reduce number of HTTPS requests.
Having one large css file is better then having 5 different files as most likely the css file will be cached in the user's browser after initial request and cached CSS file will be served after first request.
Yes, it is best practice for the following reason:
When the user loads your website they will take the hit of downloading the singel CSS file on first load - thereafter it will be cached by their browser for every page on your site under your main domain. This means no more loading of the CSS file from the server for surfing your site and faster page loads.
If you have separation concerns from a code structure point of view I would encourage you to consider some CSS pre-compilers such as SASS or LESS that will allow you to structure your code in a nicer way.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
According to:
http://intendance.com/2011/03/31/enterprise-content-management-open-source-squiz-matrix/
They have stated:
Most other open source content
management systems options such as,
Drupal, Typo3, Mambo, Joomla rely on
their developers community for
extensions/addons maintenance and
upgrades with no guarantee that they
would continue to do so. While having
large community is great, the
enterprise approach provides a
framework you can extend to your own
uses. Most users of Squiz Matrix want
this flexibility. They not only want
to roll out websites that feels like
they came pre-implemented in their
CMS, but also editing interfaces and
processes that match their internal
work processes. And all this needs to
be done without writing server-side
codes. This one area is where Squiz
Matrix Excels compared to other
traditional open source CMS.
What does this mean and is it true?
Here's essentially what I believe that paragraph means, if I translate (after reviewing their product)...
... starting with the last half of their paragraph first (because it'll make more sense that way)...
People who manage a CMS (web site) want to be able to drag and drop cool plugins and add-ons to their site without having to learn how to code. We can do that. But you want your plugins to "feel" like they're actually part of your site (and not a tacked on after-thought). Ours do.
We're better than the other guys (like Drupal, Typo3, Mambo, Joomla) because... Yes, they also have all those cool plugins and add-ons that'll work for you (without coding)... BUT... Because they're "open source" and not "enterprise" you can't rely on them! Who knows where those open source plugin developers will be in a year or two!
... this one sentence has no translation...
While having large community is great, the enterprise approach provides a framework you can extend to your own uses.
If I were to try, it would sound something like this...
A tip of the hat to open source for providing great support and development! But "enterprise" is better because you can do whatever you want with it to make it better (like you can with Microsoft Word and you can't with OpenOffice).
Since you asked "is it true" I think that's a matter of opinion. I would say, "no", if you choose a good open source CMS with a vibrant community. I would say "yes" if you choose a sub-par tool with absolutely no community following (like this one)...
I will note also that it's a little difficult to gauge exactly how robust their plugin collection might be when you're left with this kind of jargon to figure it out: https://www.squiz.net/resources/integration-datasheet
Again, masterful writing!
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 12 years ago.
I am new to web development, learning ASP.NET. I used some JQuery script so am just wondering if it causes some performance issues or anything like that. Is it OK and rather safe to use it?
I work as a Developer Evangelist for Microsoft, and as the others have said jQuery is not only stable and safe... it's also awesome.
If it wasn't, we wouldn't have baked it into the .NET project templates.
In terms of performance there are things that you as a developer can do wrong, but if you follow best practices jQuery will improve your visitor’s experience, not detract from it.
If you are learning jQuery then make sure you visit jQuery.com to look at their getting started section. Also I found the following links useful:
Get Started With JQuery
Improve your jQuery - 25 excellent tips
As well as the Google CDN, Microsoft also provides one:
http://ajax.microsoft.com/ajax/jquery/jquery-1.4.2.min.js
Ajax CDN Announcement
Microsoft Ajax CDN Documentation
I feel like I am being baited...
jQuery is an amazing library. The fact that it aligns how CSS and JavaScript are selected and processed is amazing. The fact that it hides so much of the browser-to-browser inconsistency that makes JavaScript such a pain is huge. The fact that it makes so many amazing things simple is...well...pretty valuable.
If you cache properly and call it from a CDN* there is really very little performance issue. In fact, I would say that my sites are a good deal faster because of jQuery since the jQuery code I am calling is much better than I would do myself.
Also, I try for Unobtrusive JavaScript wherever possible so the site still at least works even if the JQuery magic is unavailable.
A CDN is a Content Delivery Network. This is the way I recommend you link to jQuery in your pages.
jQuery is available from the Google CDN here:
https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.4.2/jquery.min.js
If you leave off the minor version number, Google provides the latest version.
It's safe to use and saves you a lot of time since it gives you the same api for all browsers.
It's safer to use it. Different browsers do things differently, jQuery provides a wonderful abstraction layer. You can essentially trust jQuery to do the required plumbing to work on each supported browser, rather than you having to take care of it yourself.
There technically would be a slight overhead since you're hopping through a method to get to the end result, but it's so tiny I would not worry about it.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
As a side project, for "fun," I'm rewriting my blog and CMS in Flex and AIR respectively, and while I'm pretty well satisfied with the design thus far, the one major pain point remains working with (which is to say performing CRUD operations on) legacy HTML content, and rendering that HTML content decently in both the browser and the Flash player. Sure, I can use the out-of-the-box RichTextEditor and TextArea controls, but both tend to choke on displaying and manipulating simple markup (e.g., single or absent quotes on attributes, image alignment, etc.), and the content it generates by default, while beautifully rendered in the Flash player, usually looks ridiculous in the browser -- an important factor to me, since I'd like to continue publishing RSS.
I know there are a couple of RichTextEditor derivatives out there, but before heading down the road with any of them, or down the alternative road of manipulating the content manually, I figured I'd poll the group here first, to see whether anyone's tackled this problem before; it seems like it has to be a fairly common use case.
Thanks in advance for your insights!
The problem you've hit is Flash natively supports a very small subset of HTML. So any editing you do to fit the Flash player will make it render much more primitively in HTML. Personally I think the conflicting aims of editing legacy content in Flash and displaying cleanly in both Browser and Flash are going to be too difficult to resolve.
One alternative would be to write your own text layout engine, much like the team working on Buzzword did. Given it took them many months to produce their application, I suspect this is massively out of scope for your plans :)
Another, simpler alternative would be to apply a server side transformer over the HTML content to simplify it down to Flash level. This would enable you to have a richly layed out HTML document, and a simpler Flash document. However it won't help you edit it in the Flash player.
If you wanted to edit your HTML in Flash, you might be able to use the wmode + iFrame trick first mentioned by Christophe Coenraets and updated by Renaun Erickson to give yourself a dual-live preview but you are still going to have the problems with different levels of HTML support by Flash and Browser. And editing a textfield to manually edit-then-preview your content really isn't what you want to be doing.
A final option would be to investigate the newly-in-beta
Text Layout Framework which would help give you some of the more extensive WYSIWYG parts of HTML. This looks a complicated but fairly feature rich. It works with Flex 3.2 / Flex 4 / Flash CS4. Of course this in beta, so may change at some point in the future.
As an aside, if you are building an AIR application, perhaps building a HTML+JS AIR application using existing JS+HTML editors such as FCKEditor would be a viable solution? Then you would just have to render for the Flash player (perhaps using a transformer approach as detailed above).
Take a read of Display HTML in an Actionscript 3 project
It doesn't fully answer your question (as it only addresses rendering HTML in Flash), but it may prove a useful starting point.
Have you considered using one of the existing JavaScript-based rich text editors and embedding it within HTML that is hosted within your flash-based app for example?
I myself am currently investigating use of FCKeditor as a popup on pages to edit content that can be displayed in Flex component htmlwrapper .. no idea how far i will get, but that's my insight!
Have you tried html tidy? It has a standalone version and php has tidy module too.