jayseae

Hi Bill - Sounds like something I might be able to help out with! I'll drop you a PM.

Have to say that as I am already a customer (no need for pre-sales) and have yet to have a billing problem, I'm not too concerned about the first numbers. And I'd typically rather check the site for network status problems, too. But the announcement is still really neat. Congratulations.

The main thing is that XHTML 1.1 Strict doesn't support frames. No frames, no targets. I use something like this in my anchors when I'd like to open a new window: ><a href="page.html" onClick="window.open('page.html');return false">page.html</a> For those browsers that support javascript (and have it enabled), the onclick will happen - the new window will open, and 'false' will be returned, so that the page doesn't move. If you don't do this, you'll get a new window and you'll get a new page in the existing window. For those browsers who don't support javascript, or don't have it enabled, the onclick event is ignored - so the new page opens in the existing window. While it may mean some people don't get a new window, it will work in many cases - and more importantly, it will degrade gracefully, so if someone doesn't have javascript enabled (or have it at all), they can still get to the link.

I use wordpad.

Very cool indeed!

I run Windows XP Pro on my primary desktop, mostly because of the support I need to provide to customers who have MS products. I run Windows XP Pro on another machine that I use to play DVDs and such. Mostly because I haven't had a chance to do anything else with it, and if it's running I'm not going to worry about it much. I did install Windows Media Player 9 on it and it about choked. So I may have to revisit that decision soon. I run Windows XP Pro on a laptop that I also use primarily for customer support when I go on-site. Finally, I run Debian on a test box that I have for web site development, and that also acts as a mirror to my site here at TCH.

I don't think that's the case, but then I've had Acrobat installed for so long, I just don't know if it is or not. I know of at least a couple of times that I've seen PDFs with form fields on them for filling out the data, and I can't imagine that they'd be for the general public, who couldn't be expected to have Acrobat installed in most cases. But IANAL.

Just realize that if you do this, you will lose some functionality. Not common functionality, but functionality nonetheless. The only time I've run into issues is if you've got a PDF that has fields in it that you'd like to fill out - clicking checkboxes or whatever. The appropriate plugins are no longer installed when you perform this surgery. Not a big deal by any means. Just something to think about.

Sweet. For anyone who needs the PHP, try something like this: ><?php if ($_SERVER['HTTP_HOST']=="domain1.com") print("Welcome to domain1.com!"); else print("Welcome to domain2.com!"); ?> You may want to work with regular expressions, so you don't have to list domain1.com, www.domain1.com, etc. And you may want to add more than that in there. But that's all there is to it. Thanks Bruce!

So, as long as the same index page is loaded for both domains, that page can display different data, depending on the host requested? Not meaning to be stubborn. Really. I just want to understand what I can and cannot do.

Hi Bruce - Thanks for the note, but I'm still not clear. So if the entry point is the same (I'm assuming index.html, or the equivalent index file), but that entry point then parses the request and serves different information from the same markup (ie, still within index.html), it would be okay? I think that I'm having trouble with the difference - I mean, the AUP says 'only one domain'. If you can change the title attribute, then it seems that that's not a hard-and-fast rule of 'only one domain', because you're in effect serving different data based on the domain. I'd just like to understand how the line is being drawn, to make sure that I don't do something that crosses it. Changing the title is simply a matter of altering the output markup. If the title can be changed, why can't other markup elements within that same page also be changed?

It seems that you're sending HTTP header information (for instance, a content-type declaration) after you've already output some data. I had a similar problem with some of my scripts. While ignoring the error may correct it on-screen, it may also prevent the header from being sent, which may cause other problems. Check your PHP and make sure that you are sending HTTP headers _only_ before you send any other information at all. If that isn't clear, post some of your code here so we can see what sort of problem you're having.

The actual FTP speed of navigations and transfers is okay, but when I reconnect it always takes a while (10-15 seconds?) from the time the connection is made until the time I can actually do anything. Only happens at TCH, so far as I know. This would be less of an issue if I could... Adjust the timeout settings on the FTP session. I'm all for having timeouts, but they are _short_. I write hacks and plugins for my Movable Type installation, and I'll find a problem or need to make a change, and by the time I get the change fixed, the session has timed out. Not a big deal if it's several minutes, but I've lost sessions in as little as 60 seconds or so. On more than one occasion, by the time control returns after navigating to a new directory, the session drops before I can even transfer the file. We're talking maybe 5 or 10 seconds here! I haven't actually timed any of them, as that wastes time and I don't seem to have enough time to begin with - but is it possible to get something even slightly longer? Like 3 minutes, or even 5? Thanks!

I actually posted on this very topic on my blog. My traffic - at least currently - is much less tilted towards IE (currently 41.5%) vs Mozilla (at about 32.6%), and Firebird does register (at 0.9%). I don't, however, know how to change the settings so that Firefox will be detected. I'd also be interested in knowing, however.

Glenn mentioned... So if I have a domain (I do), and if I have another domain parked on top of that domain (I also do), it is _not_ a violation of the AUP to process the incoming request (with PHP, for instance) and serve different data depending on which domain is accessed? If that is a correct interpretation, where is the line drawn? That is to say - it's easy enough with PHP to look at the incoming request and redirect someone to a subdomain, which is essentially the same as pointing directly at the subdomain, which _is_ apparently a violation of the AUP. So is it okay if the redirection doesn't go to a subdomain, and the page is hosted in the top level directory? Or is it only okay if the 'branding' work is actually done in the same page, without any redirection at all? For instance: >if domain1 print 'domain1' else print 'domain2' Vastly simplified, naturally.