There are so many top level domains these days, like .xxx, .club and so on.
How do I check if some domain's top-level domain is correct and exists?
For example, mydomain.xyz. I can cut off mydomain. and check the rule against xyz. Should I get a full list somewhere? I suppose it's not 100% guaranteed as the list can grow over time?
Or may be I should use some remote API for this?
I found this one http://data.iana.org/TLD/tlds-alpha-by-domain.txt and it seems to be the one that I hope is updated regularly. Is it a good enough source?
Please advise.
If you want to check a given string to see if there is a currently existing TLD with that name, you can send an NS query for the name to the root servers and see if they give you a sensible answer. If they do, the TLD exists. If they do not, it does not exist.
If you want a list of all currently existing TLDs, the URL you give in your question is indeed the correct place to get one. As the first line in the file indicates, it does get updated regularly.
Related
I am using the latest versions on 2sxc (11.05) and the Content App on DNN 9.06. The Content-Type for Locations does not have a field for Region (or State). Is there already something in place to account for that to get Canadian or US addresses to output normally? I realize I can add the field and then maybe use the Dropdown from Query to hook it up to DNN's list of Regions, and then modify the Views accordingly...
But that seems like a lot of work for something that might already be built in (and I just don't see it?). Or is there another easy way to tackle this?
Truth be told - we never needed that so far, so it doesn't exist.
Is this necessary for maps to work, or just another field which a standard us-address needs? I'm curious because neither outlook nor SharePoint seem to require such a field, so I never really thought about it.
BUT: if you do implement it, please do share it back with us, so we can publish it.
Note that if this is important, a possibly nicer solution would be to use a public api somewhere which provides this information, as it's most certainly more complete & up to date for this purpose. If this is the case, ping me and I'll implement a string-dropdown-from-json or something like that :)
I've read a bit on the matter of friendly urls and I'm a little unsure as to what is better.
I currently have my website using a structure of http://www.domain.com/page.php?id=2
I am using the record id to determine the content of the page. My record id's are numeric and increment for new pages added. The content of existing pages can change completely over time. But, still use the same record id (this is a cms so the client may do this).
The way I understand it I have two options for friendly urls:
http://www.domain.com/page/2
http://www.domain.com/some-text-describing-the-page
Now because I identify the content by the record id, I would assume the first option would make more sense.
My client seems to want option two.
After some reading I found two conflicting points.
As per Tim Berners-Lee (the architect of the WWW) he states that you want a URI which will have the potential to remain the same 2 months, 2 years, 200 years from now. So you DO NOT want to use a page title or something similar for your pages. If you change your pages content you are either forced to change the content and leave the URI alone, or change the URI and are stuck with dangling links. You can read his article here (http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI)
However, a number of other people on the internet (with no know authority to me) clearly state that you need to have a descriptive yet short URI for the best SEO value. From what I read, mostly for the purpose of backlinks and having keywords in the anchor text since people just use the link itself for the anchor text. So having keywords in the link itself helps search engines know what the link is about without a custom title.
It seems to me the difference has to do with long term VS short term.
Am I grasping this correctly?
If I am to use a slug style URI as defined by the user, do I have to just allow my user to type in whatever they want to a field and check against the current database to see if it exist? If so, am I supposed to anticipate static links by running a query for the know record id and then use the result to generate the url which would just be rewritten back to the format: http://www.domain.com/page.php?id=2?
It seems to me that would be a lot of extra overhead.
I would suggest something in the middle of those two:
http://www.domain.com/page/2/some-text-describing-the-page
or without page:
http://www.domain.com/2/some-text-describing-the-page
You can still get page Id from the Url, and there is a title as well! And what even more important, you're still able to get correct content, even when page title change later.
So think about situation like that: User creates a page, it receives Id=4 and it's title is My great title. From that information Url is generated, and is e.g. http://www.domain.com/page/3/my-great-title. After 2 months user changes the title to This title is better then the last one!. Url changes as well to http://www.domain.com/page/3/this-title-is-better-then-the-last-one. However, there is still 3 within the Url, so you're able to show right content! You can also check, if the rest of Url is actual, and redirect (301 would be the best one) to new one to let search engines know, that Url changed.
I wanted to register a domain name for myself but as usual could not get exactly the name I wished for.
Ex: 11minutes.com was what I wanted.
But I found a very similar one with a hyphen in between.
Ex:11-minutes.com
Are there any disadvantages to buying this domain ?
One down side is that people looking for the 11-minutes version might type the other variant into their browser address bar and go to the wrong site.
Another is that if the version already registered is a trademark in the same business as you, they could decide you're infringing and have your domain taken away.
It's better to have something distinct in most cases.
I've searched a lot for the answer to this question - but can't find one - possibly it is just too stupid, in which case please forgive me!
I want to add og metadata to our pages, but the information for each logical object (in our case a sports team or player) can be spread across multiple actual URLs (eg /team/, /team/players/, /team/results/ are all logically part of /team/).
Can I put the same opengraph metadata on multiple pages that represent the same object?
Or alternatively, can I specify the og:url as a regex, eg: /team/* ?
Or does /team/ imply /team/* for an og:url ?
Thanks very much for any clarification, Mike
the information for each logical object (in our case a sports team or player) can be spread across multiple actual URLs (eg /team/, /team/players/, /team/results/ are all logically part of /team/).
Do you mean all of these URLs contain the same information (they are just different points of access to that info) – or do you mean the info is spread in „bits and pieces” over these URLs (and a user would have to visit them all to get all the info)?
I’m not sure I understand your question/problem here – but maybe you’re just looking for what’s called a canonical URL …?
You could call in every subpage the Open Graph API passing the parent page as object; no need to put metadata also on subpages, if you are not interested in having subpages as separate objects. This way, a like clicked on an individual page is always given to the team. You might use a custom property to specify from where the click arrived (or even the ref property, maybe).
On a side note, I would not tell that results are logically part_of the team. Although for this specific usage, it does not matter.
I have seen many somewhat similar questions, but nothing quite what I'm looking for. So at the risk of being told this is a duplicate... here it goes.
I've found that there are times I have a node that simply contains content that will be displayed somewhere else, but shouldn't be viewed directly. That is, no one should ever go to node/1234, but the content in node 1234 should be displayed somewhere else.
For example, I create an about page with tabbed content using views. So there are "About Me", "About Us" and "About Them" pages. All of these are displayed in a single page with tabs using Views. So I don't want people to get directly to the "About Us" node because then they wouldn't see the tabs for the other pages. At the same time, I don't want Google giving people a direct link to this node, I want to limit access so users can only get to it through the View (i.e., the tab).
So I need to restrict access to the node, remove it from the Drupal search results, and make sure Google doesn't pick up on it. Any suggestions?
---- Note ----
I've accepted the answer from mingos (thanks btw) because even though it's not a full answer / solution, it gave me some good things to think about. Additional answers are still welcome.
In Drupal 7 you can use: http://drupal.org/project/internal_nodes
Description: Some content/nodes should never be viewed directly; only visible be through something else such as Views or Panels. This module denies access to node/[nid] URLs while allowing the content to stay published and otherwise viewable.
Full disclosure: I am the creator and co-maintainer of Internal Nodes. I found this question while searching to see how the module could be found on Google.
Tough one.
If you want to have many nodes like this and do the "displaying elsewhere" dynamically, I can't think of anything right now (at 2:20 AM I rarely can).
If there is onne such page (or very few), I'd restrict access to it by any available means (Permissions, Nodeaccess, Content Access, TAC, whatever) and then create special themes for the pages where the restricted content should be displayed. The themes would contain database queries, fetching content from the restricted nodes.
Other possibility might include creating a special theme for the hidden nodes in question (perhaps all belonging to the same content type?). Make full node display nothing (or a message saying the access is restricted) and add a ROBOTS meta tag asking Google not to index the page. Make the teaser view available though - you can display it freely inside a view, but since /node/1234 is the FULL view, the actual content will be unavailable here.
Dunno if this solves your problem, hope it helps at least a bit.
I found this page after running into this same problem.
What I found worked for me might be part of the answer you need:
Take a look at the Page Manager Redirect Module http://drupal.org/project/page_manager_redirect . I just started playing with it.
It uses the Page Manager module of CTools to redirect one page to another. What makes this most powerful is that Page Manager uses Contexts. So, if you want to redirect all pages of a particular content type, you can do so.
I just started to use it (instead of Taxonomy Redirect and Path Redirect) to redirect (301 response code) my taxonomy terms for a particular vocabulary to particular nodes.
In your instance, you should be able to use contexts to filter for specific pages.
Of course this doesn't solve the problem of these nodes coming up in search results.
There is also another module Rabbit Hole which has a similar functionality like Internal Nodes but works for all entities, not only nodes.
I am having the same problem, and are currently thinking of the following solution where all the content of a node is to be displayed to certain users (permission based):
- unpublish node
- create a new published checkbox
- create a view with fields that shows alle the content
Haven't tested it thoroughly yet, but it seems to work.
The node is to be displayed to the creator (only one in permission 1), some of it to permission 2 and all of it to permission 3.
Any comments on this solution.
I assume this will also exclude it from search, but permission 2 and 3 needs to be able to search it. Still haven't figured that one out.
I used Rules module with an "entity is of bundle" and the built-in "Page redirect" action.
There is a really easy way to do this if you only want to show a content type through a view.
create a content type as and make it unpublished.
create a view and on the filter option set the filter to "Content: Published (No)"
the view will give anon users access to the content through the view but they won't have access to the unpublished content at the direct link to the content.