I'm referring to this page here:
http://phoexpert.blogspot.de/2015/08/why-am-i-doing-this.html?m=1
So in this blog post the author uses csjs library for internationalization (following the advice in this post ). While it works in the browser version it doesn't work for mobile version.
I assume it has something to do with the query"?m=1" that is added to the URL for the mobile version. While on the Desktop I can delete the "?m=1" to get the desired version, I can't delete it in the mobile version?
So how can fix it? Is there another library besides csjs that works with blogger (I've searched and so far only the post I was referring in the beginning was the only reference)? Or is there a workaround?
More importantly, why does it actually happen? I thought it doesn't make a difference whether it's mobile or desktop version. I thought the only thing that matters is the browser size? Why does the query "?m=1" messes up with the internationalization?
Related
I am working on a XUL desktop application, where I use the browser tag and load a URL in that tag within the desktop application.
However, some websites display as old format and according to Mozilla, XUL is deprecated and will not be useable at the end of 2017. I want to build the application with the latest technology: WebExtensions.
I have searched many examples on the usage of WebExtensions, but all are working within the browser. Can I make a standalone desktop application just like XUL, but using WebExtensions?
If yes, then please give me some hints on how to get started.
If no, is any alternative for the same requirement available?
Webextensions are fairly limited in their scope. Even if there was an application runtime utilising them, you probably wouldn't get much use out of them due to the restrictive isolation from the host system.
Strictly speaking not webextensions, albeit very similar:
The Electron framework/runtime*
Someone at Mozilla is also working on an alternative dubbed "Positron"** though that software's future is uncertain and there is a chance he might abandon it for an entirely new, highly simplified project (at least that's what I gathered from my conversation with him on Github).
*http://electron.atom.io/
**https://github.com/mozilla/positron
I have created a Firefox extension that loads an iframe. That iframe loads a web application built using AngularJS. Is there anyway to inspect what is going on? The application loads but I have 2 input boxes that I am unable to type in.
I've developed the extension in both XUL and using the Add-On SDK and both of them don't allow me to interact with the input box. I've further noticed that when I remove the ng-model attributes, interaction works. It seems like data binding is an issue.
Any ideas?
Thanks
Without seeing the code, it's hard to say what's going wrong. If I were running into this problem (and I've run into similar ones), I generally fall back to editing the Angular source, and adding dump (or console.log) statements to try and trace what's going on. It's pretty terrible, but it usually gets the job done.
Good luck!
This question is kinda old by now, but as a reference for people coming here from a web search:
you might want to look at this SO question that lists some things that can go wrong with AngularJS inside XUL extensions, together with some solutions.
I recently started using the Dojo firebug extension. I had gotten used to it since it had some nice features (letting you see dojo on the widget level). This was good for me because I am in the process of trying to learn dojo so this really let me see how stuff worked together.
My question is, has anyone found any solutions to get the Dojo firebug extension working in Firefox 6 or should I just try downgrading to FF5?
Thanks
UPDATE:
I tried a workaround I found somewhere else. It said to use the Firefox nightly build add-on, and that add-on would allow me to override the version compatibility. I tried that and it still didn't work.
I recommend trying the Add-on Compatibility Reporter extension from Mozilla. This extension (besides letting you report incompatible add-ons) lets you completely disable version checking.
It's a great way to ensure that older extensions still work when Firefox upgrades the browser every week. Now, this assumes that the issue is with version compatibility, and not that the plugin is actually broken! If it's the latter, there's not much else you can do.
(Also, that's an awesome plugin. I'm definitely going to try it out myself here shortly!)
I am using Ajax / jquery on a webpage i am designing... in order for it to function, i include (at the top of my page) the javascript at: http://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.4.4.js
This works great and all, but i have a fear that
1) the code might get changed without me knowing, then i encounter problems and try to debug for days / hours before finding that the code at this site changed
2) the website is no longer used / specific code no longer hosted years from now
So would it be safer to save that javascript file onto my server, and access it from there?
You should use either a Microsoft or Google CDN. It will be much faster, it will be cached for a lot of your users and it's guaranteed to be there, as opposed to the jQuery link you include.
http://code.jquery.com is jQuery's CDN (provided by Media Temple). The code at http://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.4.4.js will never change; jQuery will release a new version (which will be at a different URL), if anything needs to change (which happens all the time; version 1.5b was released today).
The jQuery guys know what they're doing, and they setup a CDN so people can easily link to jQuery. They're just as (un)likely to bring down the CDN as Google and Microsoft are at bringing theirs down.
See http://docs.jquery.com/Downloading_jQuery for more information.
Having said that, it would seem the Google hosted version (http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.4.4/jquery.min.js), is referenced more in websites; this leads to a small performance advantage as far as your users are concerned, as the file has more chance of being cached.
It's safe, notice the version number? As jQuery is updated then that version number will change.
Of course using a CDN will always mean that it's possible for the content delivery network to go out of business. But that's the case with any non directly controlled server.
You of course could use the Google CDN for jQuery, I highly recommend it.
Relevant:
http://code.google.com/apis/libraries/devguide.html#jquery
Can JavaFX replace what AJAX do? i went through a couple of articles like this http://www.ajaxlines.com/ajax/stuff/article/ajax_vs_javafx.php. But I am still confused. anyone help??
I don't think this will happen, certainly not at the moment. JavaFX depends on java, there's very little support cross-platform (windows mobile does work but it's very limited). There was talk about set top boxes coming out to run javafx but it doesn't seem to have taken off :\ It's a real shame, in many ways I really like JavaFX. It's a shame they won't open the source. Also for deployment there is a dependancy on a sun server to get some jars (not possible to host on your own server), so when it goes down (and it is a when) then everyones apps stop working!
Javascript keeps my vote unfortunately.
Technically, yes JavaFX can do everything that AJAX can do and more - on a supported platform. Unfortunately JavaFX isn't supported on most smartphones so you won't get the same reach as AJAX. You also need a browser plugin which you don't need for AJAX.
But if these limitations aren't a problem, then I think you will have less misery using JavaFX instead of AJAX.