I'm trying to achieve urls in the form of http://localhost:9294/users instead of http://localhost:9294/#/users
This seems possible according to the documentation but I haven't been able to get this working for "bookmarkable" urls.
To clarify, browsing directly to http://localhost:9294/users gives a 404 "Not found: /users"
You can turn on HTML5 History support in Spine like this:
Spine.Route.setup(history: true)
By passing the history: true argument to Spine.Route.setup() that will enable the fancy URLs without hash.
The documentation for this is actually buried a bit, but it's here (second to last section): http://spinejs.com/docs/routing
EDIT:
In order to have urls that can be navigated to directly, you will have to do this "server" side. For example, with Rails, you would have to build a way to take the parameter of the url (in this case "/users"), and pass it to Spine accordingly. Here is an excerpt from the Spine docs:
However, there are some things you need to be aware of when using the
History API. Firstly, every URL you send to navigate() needs to have a
real HTML representation. Although the browser won't request the new
URL at that point, it will be requested if the page is subsequently
reloaded. In other words you can't make up arbitrary URLs, like you
can with hash fragments; every URL passed to the API needs to exist.
One way of implementing this is with server side support.
When browsers request a URL (expecting a HTML response) you first make
sure on server-side that the endpoint exists and is valid. Then you
can just serve up the main application, which will read the URL,
invoking the appropriate routes. For example, let's say your user
navigates to http://example.com/users/1. On the server-side, you check
that the URL /users/1 is valid, and that the User record with an ID of
1 exists. Then you can go ahead and just serve up the JavaScript
application.
The caveat to this approach is that it doesn't give search engine
crawlers any real content. If you want your application to be
crawl-able, you'll have to detect crawler bot requests, and serve them
a 'parallel universe of content'. That is beyond the scope of this
documentation though.
It's definitely a good bit of effort to get this working properly, but it CAN be done. It's not possible to give you a specific answer without knowing the stack you're working with.
I used the following rewrites as explained in this article.
http://www.josscrowcroft.com/2012/code/htaccess-for-html5-history-pushstate-url-routing/
Related
I have a page tab app that I am hosting. I have both http and https supported. While I receive a signed_request package as expected, after I decode it does not contain page information. That data is simply missing.
I verified that like schemes are being used (https) among facebook, my hosted site and even the 'go between'-- facebook's static page handler.
Also created a new application with page tab support but got the same results-- simply no page information in the signed_request.
Any other causes people can think of?
I add the app to the page tab using this link:
https://www.facebook.com/dialog/pagetab?app_id=176236832519816&next=https://www.intelligantt.com/Facebook/application.html
Here is the page tab I am using (Note: requires permissions):
https://www.facebook.com/pages/School-Auction-Test-2/154869721351873?id=154869721351873&sk=app_176236832519816
Here is the decoded signed_request I am receiving:
{"algorithm":"HMAC-SHA256","code":!REMOVED!,"issued_at":1369384264,"user_id":"1218470256"}
5/25 Update - I thought maybe the canvas app urls didn't match the page tab urls so I spent several hours going through scenarios where they both had a trailing slash or not. Where they both had a trailing ? or not, with query parameters or not.
I also tried changing the 'next' value when creating the page tab to the canvas app url and the page tab url.
No success on either count.
I did read where because I'm seeing the 'code' value in the signed_request it means Facebook either couldn't match my urls or that I'm capturing the second request. However, I given all the URL permutations I went through I believe the urls match. I also subscribed to the 'auth.authResponseChange' which should give me the very first authResponse that should contain the signed_request with page.id in it (but doesn't).
If I had any reputation, I'd add a bounty to this.
Thanks.
I've just spent ~5 hours on this exact same problem and posted a prior answer that was incorrect. Here's the deal:
As you pointed out, signed_request appears to be missing the page data if your tab is implemented in pure javascript as a static html page (with *.htm extension).
I repeated the exact same test, on the exact same page, but wrapped my html page (including js) within a Perl script (with *.cgi extension)... and voila, signed_request has the page info.
Although confusing (and should be better documented as a design choice by Facebook), this may make some sense because it would be impossible to validate the signed_request wholly within Javascript without placing your secretkey within the scope (and therefore revealing it to a potential hacker).
It would be much easier with the PHP SDK, but if you just want to use JavaScript, maybe this will help:
Facebook Registration - Reading the data/signed request with Javascript
Also, you may want to check out this: https://github.com/diulama/js-facebook-signed-request
simply you can't get the full params with the javascript signed_request, use the php sdk to get the full signed_request . and record the values you need into javascript variabls ...
with the php sdk after instanciation ... use the facebook object as following.
$signed_request = $facebook->getSignedRequest();
var_dump($signed_request) ;
this is just to debug but u'll see that the printed array will contain many values that u won't get with js sdk for security reasons.
hope that helped better anyone who would need it, cz it seems this issue takes at the min 3 hours for everyone who runs into.
When I use LIMIT to make pages of results, how do we usually know the offset i.e. which page should be retrieved for each request?
Via cookies?
Via a query string parameter, traditionally. URLs typically include a ?page=3 to request page 3, like you'll see all over Stack Overflow: https://stackoverflow.com/questions?page=2&sort=newest
This is something you absolutely should not do through cookies. The URL should include everything necessary to navigate to the given page. Consider a user bookmarking page three of your results, or trying to link somebody else to the page they're looking at: Using cookies to store pagination data breaks these situations completely.
Usually via request parameters in action frameworks (RoR, ZF, Cake, Django) and via state of the session in component frameworks (Prado, JSF, ASP.NET). Session is usually associated with request by a cookie.
Using session to store current page is quite common in business-oriented applications, where state of the gui might be very complicated and the practically of being able to bookmark a page - limited.
I'm using pretty URLs in my web app, one example is 'forum/post/1' which invokes PostController in Forum module, which loads a post with id=1. This is what I need but that post is also accessible from 'forum/post/view/id/1'. That's bad, because search crawlers don't like when same page is accessible from several URLs, right?
I'm using Yii framework which supports 'useStrictParsing' option, which tells that incoming request must match at least one "pretty" route, otherwise request fails with 404. However it's not a perfect solution, because I don't have pretty URLs for every controller/action.
Ideally, framework should redirect 'forum/post/view/id/1' to 'forum/post/1' with a 301 status code. How did you solve this problem? It's not Yii/PHP specific question, how does your framework/tool deal with it?
The best way to make sure search engines only rank one page the pretty url over another, if there are multiple ways to view the content is to your a canonical tag within the header of your document
<link rel="canonical" href="http://www.mydomain.com/nice-url/" />
This is very useful with windows based system as IIS is not case sensitive with its web pages but the web standard is case sensitive.
So
www.maydomain.com/Newpage.aspx
www.maydomain.com/newpage.aspx
www.maydomain.com/NEWPAGE.aspx
These are all seen by Google as different pages, and you are then marked down for having a site with duplicate content, but not so with a canonical as each page in the case above would have the same canonical meta tag and the that url is the only one which will be used by the search engines.
Provided that no one links to your non-pretty urls, the search engines will never know that they exist.
If you do want to eliminate them, you could bypass your web framework by adding an alias in you web server's configuration file; the url will be redirected before it ever reaches the framework.
Frameworks like Django, which don't provide 'magic' routing, don't face this issue, the only routes which exist are those which you define manually. In it's case, you could define a view for the non-pretty url which returns the appropriate redirect.
I have an injection script--a start script--whose ultimate goal is to redirect to a different URL. That injection script needs to access the extension settings, so it sends a message to a global HTML file. That global file checks the settings and redirects to the appropriate URL by setting the safari.application.activeBrowserWindow.activeTab.url property.
What I'm finding is that all too often, the interim page loads first making for an annoying UX at best and introducing errors at worst. I'm assuming that this is a result of the asynchronous nature of messaging, but I haven't been able to find a way to stop it.
Is there any way to prevent the default behavior (loading the originally requested page) while still reading from extension settings?
Thanks.
It looks like this simply isn't possible given the current state of the Safari extension API.
I'm guessing a site like stack overflow doesn't keep an html file around for every question ever asked. Instead, server-side code creates the page every time a question is clicked on(I think). Is it possible for search engines to index every quesiton on Stack Overflow, or would a page-per-question need to be kept in the directory so the search engine can crawl it?
Yes. Search engines can index dynamically generated pages no problem. In fact, from the search engine bot's perspective, it can't really even distinguish between a dynamically generated page and a static one.
You might be interested by the Dynamic URLs vs. static URLs post on the Official Google Webmaster Central Blog.
Yes it's perfectly possible - when a link is followed the server returns HTML just like any other web page. The only difference is that the server generated it, rather than a person.
As far as the client (be it a browser or search engine) is concerned, there is no difference between a server-generated page and a static file. They're virtually indistinguishable (depending on how the page is generated, it might be missing Last-Modified headers, etc). As such, yes, search engines can index generated pages without a problem.
That said, there is something to be said for giving them a hint. Using sitemaps, for example, gives a search engine a nice listing of all your pages, so it's less likely to miss them. More importantly, it can summarize last modified times, to focus the search engine's attention on what has changed recently. This isn't mandatory, but it does help - regardless of whether the pages are static HTML or generated.
Any link that uses a GET can be followed by most crawlers. Anything that requires a POST will generally be ignored.
The mechanism for generating the page is irrelevant.
yes if this is not restricted by robot.txt or meta tags.Search engine requests web page like normal user,no one have access to server side code(if your site isn't hacked))
Search engines can see pretty much anything on a given Web page that isn't hidden behind client-side code (i.e., JavaScript).
So, if there's a URL that you can enter into your browser's address bar to get this page, and this page is linked to from somewhere, a search engine will find it and "see" the same content that you do. The fact that the page was generated dynamically by a server is irrelevant to a search engine, since what is sent to a browser upon requesting a URL is still just an HTML file.
In other words, that HTML file doesn't exist in the same form on the server - i.e., it's actually some server-side code that generates HTML, not a static HTML file - but that's not what a search engine is crawling though and indexing, rather links to document URLs that are exactly what you see in your browser's address bar.