I am an absolute beginner, so I am sorry if this question has been asked before and I simply couldnt find it because I was lacking the right search terms. Feel free to point me to the right posts and delete this one her. So apologies in advance.
I am looking to program a software that imports a list and links every word or sentence on that list to an audio file. I then want to export the whole thing: the list, the audio files AND how the relations between the words in order to use everything with a different app, programmed in a different programming (that is all yet to come. it will probably be in ruby)
Since I will probably not be able to open coredata files with ruby, which file format will be the best for me, so that I can use it in ruby etc.? or will I have to save all audio files individually, as audio files and have a separate txt file that links the words to the files? This sounds... wrong? :(
Sorry I am so lost right now!
You can use json file to hold all your data. It is widely accepted as a data interchange format. But better not to embed audio files in another file. Instead you can save path to you audio file.
Under the section "Cascading Style Sheets" in M. Hartl's Rails 3 tutorial he mentions copying the CSS blueprint directory into the 'public/stylesheets' folder. My stylesheets folder resides within the assets directory. Is it reasonable to copy the blueprint directory into the 'assets/stylesheets' instead of the 'public/styleshets'? If not, what might be your suggestion? If so, are there any particular pitfalls of which you might suggest I be mindful?
He clearly suggested using Rails 3.0.1, though I am running 3.2.6. I should have followed his directions to the mark, but I had an almost impossible time getting the environment up and running on my Windows machine (MySQL conflicts, etc... ) and it just so happened that this version ended up working for me so I went with it.
Don't assume I know what I'm talking about, because I'm new to RoR, but I just spent the last few hours reading up on the asset pipeline after running into problems with it. I'll share a few things I've learned that might help you conceptualize:
Anything in public/ is left just the way it is, and server as static files directly by the web server. There are two points worth considering regarding public/ assets, though:
1) They don't get the benefits of precompiling, which include:
1a) fingerprinting - Appending an md5 hash based on file contents to the filename, so that the filename changes when the file changes, forcing caches to reload. This is useful if the file might change some day (a new version of blueprint, in your case).
1b) concatenation - The precompiler can/will combine multiple CSS or JS files into one, which makes the download faster. (Exactly what files get compiled and into how many is configurable.)
1c) minification - The precompiler removes whitespace (and other clever optimizations) to shrink down the size of your CSS/JS files.
2) I'm still trying to figure this part out, but whether something is in /app/assets and goes through precompile affects whether and how helper methods work (things like asset_tag, image_tag, and javascript_include tag, which you use in your views).
Even though I'm totally unqualified, I'm seriously considering starting my own Rails Assets Best Practices page on a wiki somewhere to start organize my thoughts. I think it's sorely lacking - I've had to dredge bits of knowledge from many places, and some of what people are suggesting I find objectionable (like modifying config files to precompile add unmanifested assets).
I have copied my stylesheet files to app/assets folder and it worked normally
There's a program called PPStream which is currently only available in Chinese, it allows for access to a myriad of ad-supported movies and TV series. The problems is that it is in Chinese and menus are indecipherable.
Is it possible to hook into the part of Mac OS's API that puts text on the screen so that it routes it through a wordlist first, translating the text into English? Would the API hook be able to differentiate the different applications calling the API?
I have no experience at all with Mac APIs, just pondering on if this is worth pursuing or not.
Thanks.
Edit: The reason I would like to do this at API level is that I need to dynamically dispatch HTTP queries with a list of strings to be translated (movie titles Chinese -> English), and the edit-the-i18n-file approach wouldn't do. Any other suggestions?
I haven't downloaded, installed or run PPStream myself so I'm speaking "out of my rear end" in a sense, but there are a number of ways to localize an app. But you really need to have access to the raw, uncompiled code and project to do it correctly.
The three most likely ways the string resources are saved are these:
1)
The app may have a strings file from which it fetches the strings to be displayed in the interface.
You may be able to make a copy of this strings file and set it to English or whatever language you choose.
2)
The strings may be baked into the code itself. This is generally a NO NO for commercial grade MacOS & iOS apps, but lazy and/or inexperienced developers can do this especially if they don't think their app will ever be used in other languages.
3)
The most likely set up is that there will be a folder hidden in the application package, inside the "Resources" folder, that has named like "en.lproj" or "English.lproj" or "de.lproj" or "zh_CN.lproj" or "zh_TW.lproj" (these last two are especially likely if this is only in Chinese).
Inside those folders will be localized XIB (or older NIB) files. And if you make a copy of this folder and then modify the newly made copy to add your new language.
Options 1 & 3 are ones you might be able to copy and then modify, but then again it might not work (especially these days when there's code & app signing). I've never tried this without an accompanying project, so if you have success, you should comment your question and/or this answer and let us know.
I'm new to MODx, but am quite impressed with its power and flexibility. There's only one caveat, and I'm hoping it's just because I don't know any better.
I'm a frontend dev, and I'm used to building websites of all sizes. But I usually work with files and version control. How would I keep this paradigm with MODx?
From my poking around so far, the only way I found to use an IDE, is to keep static files with my code, to later on copy/paste into MODx Manager. Far from ideal.
I'm aware that a lot of people use an "include" snippet, to include snippets, chunks, etc. Does this work for MODx specific tags? For example, if I include a file as a snippet, and I have a template variable defined in there (or a resource link), would that be properly rendered?
Also, is there a performance hit using a snippet by including a file, vs having the snippet code entered into MODx Manager?
Bottom line, how do you develop sites on MODx? Where do you enter your code? Is there a feature like the "Import HTML" but for snippets and chunks? Is there a way to create new Templates, Documents, Chunks, TVs, etc. without going through the Manager?
Thanks in advance!
there is a whole documentation site for developing in modx, http://rtfm.modx.com/display/revolution20/Home - though it mostly concerns extending it - not customization & modification. The short answer is no, there is no version control for your snippets & such, yes, you will have to maintain them manually. [I wish that was not the case]
Most of your php code will go into either a snippet or a plugin, and yes you can include static files in either of those resource types, no, I on't know if there is a performance gain/loss, but I would imagine "no" if your include is cache-able.
for the includes you can do something like this:
include_once $modx->config['base_path'].'_path_to_my.php_';
-sean
There is VersionX for revolution that will allow you version control of chunks, snippets, resources and so on.
There is package called Auditor that will allow you to implement version control in Modx
EDIT
Sorry just noticed your question is tagged Revolution, Auditor is for Evo. I don't think there's a solution available yet although I believe it is on the Roadmap
I am still struggling to find a good naming convention for assets like images, js and css files used in my web projects.
So, my current would be:
CSS: style-{name}.css
examples: style-main.css, style-no_flash.css, style-print.css etc.
JS:
script-{name}.js
examples: script-main.js, script-nav.js etc.
Images: {imageType}-{name}.{imageExtension}
{imageType} is any of these
icon (e. g. question mark icon for help content)
img (e. g. a header image inserted via <img /> element)
button (e. g. a graphical submit button)
bg (image is used as a background image in css)
sprite (image is used as a background image in css and contains multiple "versions")
Example-names would be: icon-help.gif, img-logo.gif, sprite-main_headlines.jpg, bg-gradient.gif etc.
So, what do you think and what is your naming convention?
I've noticed a lot of frontend developers are moving away from css and js in favor of styles and scripts because there is generally other stuff in there, such as .less, .styl, and .sass as well as, for some, .coffee. Fact is, using specific technology selections in your choice of folder organization is a bad idea even if everyone does it. I'll continue to use the standard I see from these highly respected developers:
src/html
src/images
src/styles
src/styles/fonts
src/scripts
And their destination build equivalents, which are sometimes prefixed with dest depending on what they are building:
./
images
styles
styles/fonts
scripts
This allows those that want to put all files together (rather than breaking out a src directory) to keep that and keeps things clearly associated for those that do break out.
I actually go a bit futher and add
scripts/before
scripts/after
Which get smooshed into two main-before.min.js and main-after.min.js scripts, one for the header (with essential elements of normalize and modernizr that have to run early, for example) and after for last thing in the body since that javascript can wait. These are not intended for reading, much like Google's main page.
If there are scripts and style sheets that make sense to minify and leave linked alone because of a particular cache management approach that is taken care of in the build rules.
These days, if you are not using a build process of some kind, like gulp or grunt, you likely are not reaching most of the mobile-centric performance goals you should probably be considering.
I place CSS files in a folder css, Javascript in js, images in images, ... Add subfolders as you see fit. No need for any naming convention on the level of individual files.
/Assets/
/Css
/Images
/Javascript (or Script)
/Minified
/Source
Is the best structure I've seen and the one I prefer. With folders you don't really need to prefix your CSS etc. with descriptive names.
For large sites where css might define a lot of background images, a file naming convention for those assets comes in really handy for making changes later on.
For example:
[component].[function-description].[filetype]
footer.bkg-image.png
footer.copyright-gradient.png
We have also discussed adding in the element type, but im not sure how helpful that is and could possibly be misleading for future required changes:
[component].[element]-[function-description].[filetype]
footer.div-bkg-image.png
footer.p-copyright-gradient.png
You can name it like this:
/assets/css/ - For CSS files
/assets/font/ - For Font files. (Mostly you can just go to google fonts to search for usable fonts.)
/assets/images/ - For Images files.
/assets/scripts/ or /assets/js/ - For JavaScript files.
/assets/media/ - For video and misc. files.
You can also replace "assets" with "resource" or "files" folder name and keep the name of it's subfolders. Well having an order folder structure like this isn't very important the only important is you just have to arrange your files by it's format. like creating a folder "/css/" for CSS files or "/images/" for Image files.
First, I divide into folders: css, js, img.
Within css and js, I prefix files with the project name because your site may include js and css files which are components, this makes it clear where files are specific for your site, or relating to plugins.
css/mysite.main.css css/mysite.main.js
Other files might be like
js/jquery-1.6.1.js
js/jquery.validate.js
Finally images are divided by their use.
img/btn/submit.png a button
img/lgo/mysite-logo.png a logo
img/bkg/header.gif a background
img/dcl/top-left-widget.jpg a decal element
img/con/portait-of-something.jpg a content image
It's important to keep images organized since there can be over 100 and can easily get totally mixed together and confusingly-named.
I tend to avoid anything generic, such as what smdrager suggested. "mysite.main.css" doesn't mean anything at all.
What is "mysite"?? This one I'm working on? If so then obvious really, but it already has me thinking what it might be and if it is this obvious!
What is "Main"? The word "Main" has no definition outside the coders knowledge of what is within that css file.
While ok in certain scenarios, avoid names like "top" or "left" too: "top-nav.css" or "top-main-logo.png".
You might end up wanting to use the same thing elsewhere, and putting an image in a footer or within the main page content called "top-banner.png" is very confusing!
I don't see any issue with having a good number of stylesheets to allow for a decent naming convention to portray what css is within the given file.
How many depends entirely on the size of the site and what it's function(s) are, and how many different blocks are on the site.
I don't think you need to state "CSS" or "STYLE" in the css filenames at all, as the fact it's in "css" or "styles" folder and has an extension of .css and mainly as these files are only ever called in the <head> area, I know pretty clearly what they are.
That said, I do this with library, JS and config (etc) files. eg libSomeLibrary.php, or JSSomeScript.php. As PHP and JS files are included or used in various areas within other files, and having info of what the file's main purpose is within the name is useful.
eg: Seeing the filename require('libContactFormValidation.php'); is useful. I know it's a library file (lib) and from the name what it does.
For image folders, I usually have images/content-images/ and images/style-images/. I don't think there needs to be any further separation, but again it depends on the project.
Then each image will be named accordingly to what it is, and again I don't think there's any need for defining the file is an image within the file name. Sizes can be useful, especially for when images have different sizes.
site-logo-150x150.png
site-logo-35x35.png
shop-checkout-button-40x40.png
shop-remove-item-20x20.png
etc
A good rule to follow is: if a new developer came to the files, would they sit scratching their head for hours, or would they likely understand what things do and only need a little time researching (which is unavoidable)?
As anything like this, however, one of the most important rules to follow is simply constancy!
Make sure you follow the same logic and patterns thoughout all your naming conventions!
From simple css file names, to PHP library files to database table and column names.
This is an old question, but still valid.
My current recommendation is to go with something in this lines:
assets (or assets-web or assets-www); this one is intended for static content used by the client (browser)
data; some xml files and other stuff
fonts
images
media
styles
scripts
lib (or 3rd-party); this one is intended for code you don't make or modify, the libraries as you get them
lib-modded (or 3rd-party-modified); this one is intended for code you weren't expected to modify, but had to, like applying a workaround/fix in the meantime the library provider releases it
inc (or assets-server or assets-local); this one is intended for content used server side, not to be used by the client, like libraries in languages like PHP or server scripts, like bash files
fonts
lib
lib-modded
I marked in bold the usual ones, the others are not usual content.
The reason for the main division, is in the future you can decide to server the web assets from a CDN or restrict client access to server assets, for security reasons.
Inside the lib directories i use to be descriptive about the libraries, for example
lib
jquery.com
jQuery
vX.Y.Z
github
[path]
[library/project name]
vX.Y.Z (version)
so you can replace the library with a new one, without breaking the code, also allowing future code maintainers, including yourself, to find the library and update it or get support.
Also, feel free to organize the content inside according to its usage, so images/logos and images/icons are expected directories in some projects.
As a side note, the assets name is meaningful, not only meaning we have resources in there, but meaning the resources in there must be of value for the project and not dead weight.
The BBC have tons of standards relating web development.
Their standard is fairly simple for CSS files:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/futuremedia/technical/css.shtml
You might be able to find something useful on their main site:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/futuremedia/