Search Results

Search found 3 results on 1 pages for 'mwb'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • SEO and multiple domains to same site

    - by mwb
    I have one website. I have two domain names that I want to point to the same site install. So whether you go to name-one.com or name-two.com you see the exact same site. Now, I can either set up name-two.com to serve 301 redirect header redirecting to name-one.com – or, I can set up name-two.com as a CNAME in the DNS pointing to name-one.com What is the different implications for SEO on this? What is recommended? I would guess it's better for branding to use a 301 redirect, so that visitors will see one consistent url for my site, right? The reason I want the two domains is that I want a version with regional letters ('ö' instead of 'oe' ) in the name.

    Read the article

  • php: parsing and converting array structure

    - by mwb
    I need to convert one array structure into another array structure. I hope someone will find it worthy their time to show how this could be done in a simple manner. It's a little above my array manipulation skills. The structure we start out with looks like this: $cssoptions = array( array( 'group' => 'Measurements' , 'selector' => '#content' , 'rule' => 'width' , 'value' => '200px' ) // end data set , array( 'group' => 'Measurements' , 'selector' => '#content' , 'rule' => 'margin-right' , 'value' => '20px' ) // end data set , array( 'group' => 'Colors' , 'selector' => '#content' , 'rule' => 'color' , 'value' => '#444' ) // end data set , array( 'group' => 'Measurements' , 'selector' => '.sidebar' , 'rule' => 'margin-top' , 'value' => '10px' ) // end data set ); // END $cssoptions It's a collection of discreet datasets, each consisting of an array that holds two key = value pairs describing a 'css-rule' and a 'css-rule-value'. Further, each dataset holds a key = value pair describing the 'css-selector-group' that the 'css-rule' should blong to, and a key = value pair describing a 'rule-group' that should be used for structuring the rendering of the final css into a neat css code block arranged by the kind of properties they describe (colors, measurement, typography etc..) Now, I need to parse that, and turn it into a new structure, where the: 'rule' => 'rule-name' , 'value' => 'value-string' for each dataset is converted into: 'rule-name' => 'value-string' ..and then placed into a new array structure where all 'rule-name' = 'value-string' pairs should be aggregated under the respective 'selector-values' Like this: '#content' => array( 'width' => '200px' , 'margin-right' => '20px' ) // end selecor block ..and finally all those blocks should be grouped under their respective 'style-groups', creating a final resulting array structure like this: $css => array( 'Measurements' => array( '#content' => array( 'width' => '200px' , 'margin-right' => '20px' ) // end selecor block , '.sidebar' => array( 'margin-top' => '10px' ) // end selector block ) // end rule group , 'Colors' => array( '#content' => array( 'color' => '#444' ) // end selector block ) // end rule group ); // end css

    Read the article

  • Is a "model" branch a common practice?

    - by dukeofgaming
    I just thought it could be a good thing to have a dedicated version control branch for all database schema changes and I wanted to know if anyone else is doing the same and what have the results been. Say that you are working with: Schema model/documentation (some file where you model the database visually to generate the schema source, say MySQL Workbench, with a .mwb file, which is binary) Schema source (a .sql file) Schema-based code generation The normal way we were working was with feature branches, so we would do changes to the model files (the database specific ones), and then have to regenerate points 2 and 3, dealing with the possible conflicts (or even code rewriting). Now say that your workflow goes the same way as the previous item numbering. With a model branch you wouldn't have to reconcile the schema model with binaries in other feature branches, or have to regenerate schema source and regenerate code (which might have human code on top of it). It makes so much sense to me it feels weird not having seen this earlier as a common practice. Edit: I'm counting on branch merges to be the assertions for the model matching the code. I use a DVCS, so I don't fear long-lived branches or scary-looking merges. I'm also doing feature branching.

    Read the article

1