Community

A little hard for a rookie like me, but useful. I also thought you'd like to know there is a great domain name at Godaddy.com that you may be interested in. It's call PHPDEVELOPING.COM and I think its a good fit for you because your a great PHP programmer. You can contact me at my email address and I'll help you get to it if you want. Again, just thought you'd like to know.

Posted In A rev="canonical" HTTP Header.

Thu, 02 Jul 2009 at 01:55:07 GMT

Aren't you forgetting that the session will expire if _write() is never called?

That excludes whole lot of web activity. I can do a lot on a website that may not cause any changes to my session.

Shouldn't _read() update the access datetime as well?

Moreover, shouldn't _read() also check to make sure the session is not expired already?

Posted In .

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 at 18:37:08 GMT

@Chris Shiflett, #4, belatedly:

Google only accepts rel=canonical within the same domain. My solution addresses the problem (and Matt's concern) of determining veracity across domains.

Posted In A rev="canonical" HTTP Header.

Sat, 27 Jun 2009 at 22:43:07 GMT

I've implemented this rev="canonical" idea on http://free.naplesplus.us in the hopes that it catches on further.

It wasn't hard to put together. I followed the style used on php.net like so:

http://free.naplesplus.us/articles/view.php/50574/colcourt is the original

and in the header, I have:

<link rev="canonical" rel="self alternate shorter shorturl shortlink" href="http://free.naplesplus.us/go.php/colcourt" />

which is the form used on php.net, which I happen to like, as it takes into account not only the rev=canonical, but ALSO the rel= self, or alternate or shorter or shorturl or shortlink ideas, which are ALSO excellent notions.

If I wanted to go further, I will probably do a mod-rewrite to make the go.php into go

But I figured since I had this GREAT nick-name system already in place that I was hardly taking any advantage of on my CMS (YACS - a little known system out of france), I might as well use it.

It's not MUCH shorter (maybe 5-10 characters shorter at best - and some of them end up being LONGER) - but I figure that it's a beginning of a great idea!

Ken Udut of Naples Florida

Posted In Save the Internet with rev="canonical".

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 at 21:28:35 GMT

After reading your article and all the comments, what I got out of this was that sessions are not secure and there ain't much we can do about it. That's kind of sad :(

I'm choosing to store my session ids in a cookie, and leaving it at that. I think the inconvenience to legitamate users outweighs the security benefits of trying to rely on http headers.

Posted In .

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 at 23:07:17 GMT

I do like the idea of CSS Naked Day, and in theory you should still be able to navigate the site easily without CSS, however I think that any confusion comes down to users just not being used to sites without styling. By being so used to sites in a block on the site with the various elements spaced out across the site and positioned to aid navigation any deviation from this is unfamiliar.

It's rare to find a site which is simply a list of data with the only definition between sections being font size and padding. So i'm not overly sure if there is a solution to this 'problem', was the solution not css?

Posted In CSS Naked Day.

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 at 08:53:47 GMT

Great blog post, great ideas, wonderful intentions!

Can someone please make a proper documented suggestion and forward it to the proper organization (I think w3c.org ?) in order to see it as a standardized implementation?

Posted In Save the Internet with rev="canonical".

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 at 07:46:00 GMT

By the way, I find that keeping an app open sometimes locks up resources (especially files and devices) that prevent other apps from doing certain things to them. This happens less now that Mac OS is unix-based and apps are written better, but it still comes up. Which is why so many install/uninstall programs tell you to "close all open applications". I find myself constantly closing applications in the dock that I didn't realize were still open. I probably don't need to close these apps, but it makes me feel safer.

Posted In Top X List of Mac OS X Annoyances.

Sun, 21 Jun 2009 at 23:41:59 GMT

I've been a preferred Unix user all my life, to the point where even the non-Unixy Linux behaviors sometime annoy me. However, I pretty much resigned myself to using Windows for browsing and multimedia apps, since I find all of the Unix desktops either hugely bloated and/or a pain to setup and configure.

About a year ago, I bit the bullet and I'm using a MacBook now for browsing and multimedia. I'm never going back to windows, but I agree with most of the annoyances in this list, and I would like to point out a couple of things about the most common points of contention.

For most non-technical users, the window IS the application. Not closing the app is just a workaround for slow load times. None of the arguments presented here in favor of keeping the app open would make sense if apps launched instantly (or, as in the case of many non technical users, they don't care).

The single menu bar defeats itself in an obvious way for me. More often than I would care to admit, I completely miss the menu bar. Then, I've clicked on some other app (typically the desktop), and I have to go back and click on my original app, and then try the menu bar again.

These two things combine for added annoyance when I try to use command-Q to close apps. The problem with using command-Q is that it *may not close the application I'm looking at*. I have to divert focus away from my window to look at the menu bar to make sure I'm closing the right application. This is non-intuitive UI.

And as for the maximize button, it's not a button I use often, but when I do, I want to maximize, not zoom. Typically, it's for presentations, and a lot of presentation software has a "full screen" alternative, so I've not really been bothered by that.

Posted In Top X List of Mac OS X Annoyances.

Sun, 21 Jun 2009 at 23:38:19 GMT

And here's my PHP blog:

http://jonocode.wordpress.com

I just tried submitting to Planet PHP. It sounds like it might not go up any time soon?

Posted In PHP Blogs Not on Planet PHP.

Thu, 18 Jun 2009 at 00:38:14 GMT