I have some files which are supposed to be the "code" for a website but I don't know which Framework it is for.
I have a "*.txt" file with nothing but JavaScript-like lines with double "$", like:
$setglobalvars(xpto,0)$
$setvars(xpto2,lookuptable(!MasterData,xpto3,xpto4,lookup(xpto5),LAST_NAME))$
And a few other "*.txt" HTML-template-like files (appears to be "Mustache" templates), like:
<script id="header_tag_tmpl" type="text/x-jsrender">
<div class="tmplHidden">
<div class="pass_elem first">
<div class="fieldName">name</div>
<div class="field">{{:user.firstname}} {{:user.surname}}</div>
</div>
<div class="pass_elem second" >
<div class="fieldName">level</div>
<div class="field">{{:user.level.currentName}}</div>
</div><!--
--><div class="pass_elem third">
<div class="fieldName">LEVEL EXPIRY</div>
{{if ((user.level.currentName) == 'Entry')}}
<div class="field">N/A</div>
{{else}}
<div class="field">{{:user.level.levelExpiry}}</div>
{{/if}}
</div>
</div>
</script>
And also containing JavaScript-like lines completely outside SCRIPT tags or any other HTML tags:
$setvars(xpto,lookuptable(!MasterData,xpto2,xpto3,lookup(xpto4),xpto5))$
-
I am dealing with a 3rd party Software Provider, which created a website for my company (the source is supposed to be ours). They're being unpleasant to the point where we're considering seriously ditching them and now I need to take ownership over this website. However, I don't even know for sure which Framework the website is supposed to be.
Does anyone know what Framework this website is likely coded for?
I suspect this is being hosted by a proprietary web Framework (combined with JsRender).
The {{ tags are exactly the same as the ones for JsRender but those $something$ I just can't find out what they are and it's appearing me they're being processed by a proprietary framework.
This is not exactly a proper answer but I don't believe I'm going to get anything better than this.
(and it appears we might have become vendor-locked in to them, which is why they're being so much at ease to treat us with commercial disrespect - lovely)
Related
Is there a proper way to show multiple events on one page in Schema.org? Ideally, we don't want a page for each event. Here is a sample structure of what we want:
<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Event">
<div itemprop="name"><h2>Chili Cookoff</h2></div>
<div itemprop="location" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/PostalAddress">
<h3><span itemprop="addressLocality">Manhatten</span>, <span itemprop="addressRegion">New York</span> - <span itemprop="addressCountry">US</span></h3>
</div>
<div>
May, 1st 2014 - May 4th, 2014
<meta itemprop="startDate" content="2014-05-1:00.000">
<meta itemprop="endDate" content="2014-05-4:00.000">
</div>
<div itemprop="description">An awesome chili cookoff you won't want to miss!.</div>
</div>
<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Event">
<div itemprop="name"><h2>Dinner on the River</h2></div>
<div itemprop="location" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/PostalAddress">
<h3><span itemprop="addressLocality">Brooklyn</span>, <span itemprop="addressRegion">New York</span> - <span itemprop="addressCountry">US</span></h3>
</div>
<div>
<meta itemprop="startDate" content="2014-05-1:00.000">May, 1st 2014 -
<meta itemprop="endDate" content="2014-05-2:00.000">May 2nd, 2014
</div>
<div itemprop="description">A dinner to remember forever.</div>
</div>
Using the Google Rich Snippits tool, it doesn't want to respect there being multiple events, but I am not sure if that means the crawlers will not notice them.
Your usage of Microdata and the Schema.org vocabulary is valid.
Every conforming parser will understand this. See for example http://linter.structured-data.org/, which shows snippets that could result from markup.
However, actual search engine providers decide for themselves if, when or how to use your annotations, for example for enhancing search results. It may be the case that some providers decide that they don’t "support" multiple items on a single webpage, where "support" only means that they, for example, don’t show an enhanced snippet on their SERPs.
This is different from provider to provider, their behaviour may change over time and it may depend on many other factors of your site, too. (Discussing such SEO-related things is typically off-topic on Stack Overflow, but Webmasters SE may be an appropriate place.)
Example: Google recommends to mark up all entities on a page:
When you have multiple entity types on a page, we recommend you mark up all entities on that page to help Google algorithms better understand and index your content.
I want to mark web page with schema.org tags. I can find in the documentation that one can specify a kind o business with using tag: BusinessFunction and tag from GoodRelations.
The problem is I can not find example of it. Because the web page is about software developer I'm going to use tag: http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#ProvideService.
Can anybody give me an example?
First of all: A related yet bit outdated resource on modeling services with GoodRelations (and thus schema.org) is here: http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelationsService
This explains the basic pattern. Note that Some GoodRelations elements have slightly different names in schema.org, as listed here: http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Cookbook/Schema.org#Naming_Differences
I plan to update this page and migrate it to the new GoodRelations Cookbook. But this is an open issue and will take me a while.
Now, for your concrete question: The use of
http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#ProvideService
is fine if the good you offer is providing a certain service.
Here is a full example:
<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Offer" itemid="#offer">
<div itemprop="name">Web Development Services</div>
<div itemprop="description">We build your Web site....</div>
<link itemprop="businessFunction"
href="http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#ProvideService" />
<!-- Unit price -->
<div itemscope itemprop="priceSpecification"
itemtype="http://schema.org/UnitPriceSpecification">Price:
<meta itemprop="priceCurrency" content="USD">$
<span itemprop="price">50.00</span> per
<meta itemprop="unitCode" content="HUR"> hour
<time itemprop="validThrough"
datetime="2013-11-30T23:59:59Z"></time>
</div>
<!-- other offer properties follow here -->
...
</div>
I need to markup the review metadata for a product, but the review will have multiple ratings like service, satisfaction, quality, lifetime etc in the original schema.org documentation for review (http://schema.org/Review) there is only property/field: reviewRating using this i can only use it for one field but i need to provide metadata for all the fields, is there a solution for that?
Thanks.
Actually one property isn't an issue here since it can be used multiple times. There were a lot of discussions around cardinality of schema.org properties. You can dive into details here (issue at open tracker) and here (W3C Wiki page).
I personally follow the rule stated by Guha:
Right now, it is always allowed to have multiple values.
Another part of your question is how to describe different ratings. You can use mechanism of "multiple inheritance" like in "serious" programming language. That is one entity may have several types. In your case one type will be http://schema.org/Rating and another (quality, service, etc) you can get from any external to schema.org vocabulary. E.g., productontology is a good candidate (you can use http://www.productontology.org/id/Quality_philosophy, http://www.productontology.org/id/Customer_service accordingly). With RDFA you can just go with it - language itself provides all the necessary mechanisms to say that. But for microdata (and I bet you're using this one) you need to do "dirty hack" and use additionalType property.
So simple example of what you need is smth like this:
<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Review">
<span itemprop="name">Not a happy camper</span> -
by <span itemprop="author">Ellie</span>,
<meta itemprop="datePublished" content="2011-04-01">April 1, 2011
<div itemprop="reviewRating" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Rating">
<meta itemprop="additionalType" content="http://www.productontology.org/id/Quality_philosophy">
<meta itemprop="worstRating" content = "1">
<span itemprop="ratingValue">1</span>/
<span itemprop="bestRating">5</span>stars
</div>
<div itemprop="reviewRating" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Rating">
<meta itemprop="additionalType" content="http://www.productontology.org/id/Customer_service">
<meta itemprop="worstRating" content = "1">
<span itemprop="ratingValue">5</span>/
<span itemprop="bestRating">5</span>stars
</div>
<span itemprop="description">The lamp burned out and now I have to replace
it. </span>
</div>
And Google validator sees all the data.
I have form, which I use for users to login to the site. It works in Chrome, but for some reason not in IE 9.
Here is the form:
<cfform name="loginform" action="login.cfm" method="post">
<div class="span12">
<div class="span2">
User Name:
</div>
<div class="span2">
<cfinput type="text" name="username" required="yes">
</div>
</div>
<div class="span12">
<div class="span2">
Password:
</div>
<div class="span2">
<cfinput type="password" name="password" required="yes">
</div>
</div>
<div class="span12">
<div class="span2">
<cfinput name="submit" class="btn btn-primary" value="login" type="submit">
</div>
</div>
</cfform>
I am normally accessing the variable as #form.username#, but it is empty if being used in IE.
The simplified use here:
<cfif isdefined("FORM.submit")>
username: #form.username#
</cfif>
I can't see anything wrong with your code above when I run it I have the username field available to me in the form scope correctly. What version of Internet Explorer are you using?
To better debug this I would suggest the following:
Look at the source of the first page and see if there is anything
strange there.
Install Fiddler2 (http://www.fiddler2.com/) then use this to see
exactly what is being posted to login.cfm.
Other things to look at:
Are you using a javascript or CF framework that might be interfering with things?
I don't see anything overtly wrong with your code either. Did you try this in Firefox as well? Sometimes you can get better debugging information there. Possibly an actual error message with it. Both IE and Chrome can do a bit too "good" of a job of obscuring errors on the page.
My suggestion would also be to use plain form tags. Don't use cfform tags. There's not much need for them here. They aren't really helping you much. You could do your own validation on those fields and know exactly what it is that you are validating. You could also test your field that way. Simply change that cfinput to an input and see if that field becomes available in your post. That would pretty quickly let you know that there's an issue with your implementation of the CFFORM tags.
And it's getting a little OT, don't forget to trim the input and wrap it in XMLFormat() and add cfqueryparams to your SQL lookups to minimize scripting and injection attacks. You can also use CF's scriptProtect or rewriting URLs in IIS to help. Allowing free-form entry to FORMs or URLs without any validation is VERY dangerous.
I'm having trouble figuring out if I've done things right with RDFa and the schema.org Blog type. My blog used to have a list of posts that looked like this:
<h2>Why ORM Divides Us</h2>
<h2>A Heretical Calculus</h2>
In trying to augment it with RDFa information, specifically the Blog and BlogPosting types, I have come up with this:
<div vocab="http://schema.org/" typeof="Blog">
<h2 property="blogPosting" typeof="BlogPosting" resource="essays/why-orm-divides-us.html">
<a property="url" href="essays/why-orm-divides-us.html">
<span property="name">Why ORM Divides Us</span>
</a>
</h2>
<h2 property="blogPosting" typeof="BlogPosting" resource="essays/heretic-calculus.html">
<a property="url" href="essays/heretic-calculus.html">
<span property="name">A Heretical Calculus</span>
</a>
</h2>
...
As far as I can tell with Google Rich Snippets Testing Tool, this looks like it parses right, but I can't really tell. I have two other tries:
<div vocab="http://schema.org/" typeof="Blog">
<h2 property="blogPosting" typeof="BlogPosting" resource="essays/why-orm-divides-us.html">
Why ORM Divides Us
</h2>
<h2 property="blogPosting" typeof="BlogPosting" resource="essays/heretic-calculus.html">
A Heretical Calculus
</h2>
...
<div vocab="http://schema.org/" typeof="Blog" rel="blogPosting">
<h2 typeof="BlogPosting" resource="essays/why-orm-divides-us.html">
<a property="url" href="essays/why-orm-divides-us.html">
<span property="name">Why ORM Divides Us</span>
</a>
</h2>
<h2 typeof="BlogPosting" resource="essays/heretic-calculus.html">
<a property="url" href="essays/heretic-calculus.html">
<span property="name">A Heretical Calculus</span>
</a>
</h2>
...
So I'm asking for several pieces of information:
How do you tell if you've achieved conformance with one of these schemas?
Which one of my alternatives is right, and why?
Why do I seem to need to specify the resource directly when I'm on a link?
Why does the <a> tag parse so differently in the RDFa demo tool and the Google Rich Snippets Testing Tool?
Your first snippet is correct and I'd recommend to use it. The second one is incorrect, as the property="name" will target the href value, so don't use that one. The third one is also correct, and uses a more advanced feature of RDFa called chaining (via the rel attribute). It's perfectly valid to use that one if you prefer, Google understands it too.
I'm not aware of any official schema.org validator, but Google Rich Snippet will sometimes tell you if something is wrong (not always though). You can also validate your HTML + RDFa markup with http://validator.w3.org/nu/ and http://www.w3.org/2012/pyRdfa/Validator.html.
your first and third are correct, the second one is wrong (see above). I'd recommend the first one.
well, the url of the link is used for two purposes, first it is used to identify you object on the web, and it's also explicitly used for the 'url' property that schema.org requires. Although the second is a schema.org specific property.
That's something that Google adds on top of the RDFa syntax itself, a pure RDFa parser would not return the value and href grouped like that. I guess Google does that for convenience, but I agree it can possibly be confusing.