I needed to generate a newsletter e-mail server-side. I researched various options, but I picked React (server-side rendering) because of good TypeScript support and my familiarity with that technology.
Generating an e-mail that displays correctly in GMail (or any other popular client) is a very tricky subject, as one needs to use small (and legacy) HTML subset. But that's a separate issue.
So I've crafted a test e-mail with React SSR, using the subset of HTML supported by GMail. To be sure, I've validated it with W3 Validator and it was successfully checked.
But when I sent the generated HTML output to a GMail address and displayed it in the GMail desktop web application, the output was a mess. In the mail HTML presented in the browser, some elements had missing inline CSS properties, while other were outside of their original parents.
How can I generate an e-mail using React that doesn't break in the GMail web application?
React renderToString function (and the similar ones, too, probably) emits a single-line minified HTML output without any line length limit.
For reasons beyond my reasoning, such single-line HTML documents can "break" GMail HTML parser and cause glitchy output.
But, on the other hands, resources online actually recommend e-mail HTML minification, as whitespace can (reportedly) be interpreted inconsistently across e-mail clients. So pretty-printing HTML output doesn't sound like a good idea.
A solution is to re-minify the HTML document, but with a line length limit. To be safe, I've put the limit quite low. I've used a popular html-minifier package.
import * as React from "react";
import { minify } from "html-minifier";
import { renderToString } from "react-dom/server";
export const renderMyMail = (params: MyMailParams): string => {
const reactHtmlString = renderToString(MyMail({ params }));
const reminifiedHtmlString = minify(reactHtmlString, { maxLineLength: 255, keepClosingSlash: true });
return reminifiedHtmlString;
};
Now, the e-mail displays correctly in GMail web application.
There are a lot of cool tools for making powerful "single-page" JavaScript websites nowadays. In my opinion, this is done right by letting the server act as an API (and nothing more) and letting the client handle all of the HTML generation stuff. The problem with this "pattern" is the lack of search engine support. I can think of two solutions:
When the user enters the website, let the server render the page exactly as the client would upon navigation. So if I go to http://example.com/my_path directly the server would render the same thing as the client would if I go to /my_path through pushState.
Let the server provide a special website only for the search engine bots. If a normal user visits http://example.com/my_path the server should give him a JavaScript heavy version of the website. But if the Google bot visits, the server should give it some minimal HTML with the content I want Google to index.
The first solution is discussed further here. I have been working on a website doing this and it's not a very nice experience. It's not DRY and in my case I had to use two different template engines for the client and the server.
I think I have seen the second solution for some good ol' Flash websites. I like this approach much more than the first one and with the right tool on the server it could be done quite painlessly.
So what I'm really wondering is the following:
Can you think of any better solution?
What are the disadvantages with the second solution? If Google in some way finds out that I'm not serving the exact same content for the Google bot as a regular user, would I then be punished in the search results?
While #2 might be "easier" for you as a developer, it only provides search engine crawling. And yes, if Google finds out your serving different content, you might be penalized (I'm not an expert on that, but I have heard of it happening).
Both SEO and accessibility (not just for disabled person, but accessibility via mobile devices, touch screen devices, and other non-standard computing / internet enabled platforms) both have a similar underlying philosophy: semantically rich markup that is "accessible" (i.e. can be accessed, viewed, read, processed, or otherwise used) to all these different browsers. A screen reader, a search engine crawler or a user with JavaScript enabled, should all be able to use/index/understand your site's core functionality without issue.
pushState does not add to this burden, in my experience. It only brings what used to be an afterthought and "if we have time" to the forefront of web development.
What your describe in option #1 is usually the best way to go - but, like other accessibility and SEO issues, doing this with pushState in a JavaScript-heavy app requires up-front planning or it will become a significant burden. It should be baked in to the page and application architecture from the start - retrofitting is painful and will cause more duplication than is necessary.
I've been working with pushState and SEO recently for a couple of different application, and I found what I think is a good approach. It basically follows your item #1, but accounts for not duplicating html / templates.
Most of the info can be found in these two blog posts:
http://lostechies.com/derickbailey/2011/09/06/test-driving-backbone-views-with-jquery-templates-the-jasmine-gem-and-jasmine-jquery/
and
http://lostechies.com/derickbailey/2011/06/22/rendering-a-rails-partial-as-a-jquery-template/
The gist of it is that I use ERB or HAML templates (running Ruby on Rails, Sinatra, etc) for my server side render and to create the client side templates that Backbone can use, as well as for my Jasmine JavaScript specs. This cuts out the duplication of markup between the server side and the client side.
From there, you need to take a few additional steps to have your JavaScript work with the HTML that is rendered by the server - true progressive enhancement; taking the semantic markup that got delivered and enhancing it with JavaScript.
For example, i'm building an image gallery application with pushState. If you request /images/1 from the server, it will render the entire image gallery on the server and send all of the HTML, CSS and JavaScript down to your browser. If you have JavaScript disabled, it will work perfectly fine. Every action you take will request a different URL from the server and the server will render all of the markup for your browser. If you have JavaScript enabled, though, the JavaScript will pick up the already rendered HTML along with a few variables generated by the server and take over from there.
Here's an example:
<form id="foo">
Name: <input id="name"><button id="say">Say My Name!</button>
</form>
After the server renders this, the JavaScript would pick it up (using a Backbone.js view in this example)
FooView = Backbone.View.extend({
events: {
"change #name": "setName",
"click #say": "sayName"
},
setName: function(e){
var name = $(e.currentTarget).val();
this.model.set({name: name});
},
sayName: function(e){
e.preventDefault();
var name = this.model.get("name");
alert("Hello " + name);
},
render: function(){
// do some rendering here, for when this is just running JavaScript
}
});
$(function(){
var model = new MyModel();
var view = new FooView({
model: model,
el: $("#foo")
});
});
This is a very simple example, but I think it gets the point across.
When I instante the view after the page loads, I'm providing the existing content of the form that was rendered by the server, to the view instance as the el for the view. I am not calling render or having the view generate an el for me, when the first view is loaded. I have a render method available for after the view is up and running and the page is all JavaScript. This lets me re-render the view later if I need to.
Clicking the "Say My Name" button with JavaScript enabled will cause an alert box. Without JavaScript, it would post back to the server and the server could render the name to an html element somewhere.
Edit
Consider a more complex example, where you have a list that needs to be attached (from the comments below this)
Say you have a list of users in a <ul> tag. This list was rendered by the server when the browser made a request, and the result looks something like:
<ul id="user-list">
<li data-id="1">Bob
<li data-id="2">Mary
<li data-id="3">Frank
<li data-id="4">Jane
</ul>
Now you need to loop through this list and attach a Backbone view and model to each of the <li> items. With the use of the data-id attribute, you can find the model that each tag comes from easily. You'll then need a collection view and item view that is smart enough to attach itself to this html.
UserListView = Backbone.View.extend({
attach: function(){
this.el = $("#user-list");
this.$("li").each(function(index){
var userEl = $(this);
var id = userEl.attr("data-id");
var user = this.collection.get(id);
new UserView({
model: user,
el: userEl
});
});
}
});
UserView = Backbone.View.extend({
initialize: function(){
this.model.bind("change:name", this.updateName, this);
},
updateName: function(model, val){
this.el.text(val);
}
});
var userData = {...};
var userList = new UserCollection(userData);
var userListView = new UserListView({collection: userList});
userListView.attach();
In this example, the UserListView will loop through all of the <li> tags and attach a view object with the correct model for each one. it sets up an event handler for the model's name change event and updates the displayed text of the element when a change occurs.
This kind of process, to take the html that the server rendered and have my JavaScript take over and run it, is a great way to get things rolling for SEO, Accessibility, and pushState support.
Hope that helps.
I think you need this: http://code.google.com/web/ajaxcrawling/
You can also install a special backend that "renders" your page by running javascript on the server, and then serves that to google.
Combine both things and you have a solution without programming things twice. (As long as your app is fully controllable via anchor fragments.)
So, it seem that the main concern is being DRY
If you're using pushState have your server send the same exact code for all urls (that don't contain a file extension to serve images, etc.) "/mydir/myfile", "/myotherdir/myotherfile" or root "/" -- all requests receive the same exact code. You need to have some kind url rewrite engine. You can also serve a tiny bit of html and the rest can come from your CDN (using require.js to manage dependencies -- see https://stackoverflow.com/a/13813102/1595913).
(test the link's validity by converting the link to your url scheme and testing against existence of content by querying a static or a dynamic source. if it's not valid send a 404 response.)
When the request is not from a google bot, you just process normally.
If the request is from a google bot, you use phantom.js -- headless webkit browser ("A headless browser is simply a full-featured web browser with no visual interface.") to render html and javascript on the server and send the google bot the resulting html. As the bot parses the html it can hit your other "pushState" links /somepage on the server mylink, the server rewrites url to your application file, loads it in phantom.js and the resulting html is sent to the bot, and so on...
For your html I'm assuming you're using normal links with some kind of hijacking (e.g. using with backbone.js https://stackoverflow.com/a/9331734/1595913)
To avoid confusion with any links separate your api code that serves json into a separate subdomain, e.g. api.mysite.com
To improve performance you can pre-process your site pages for search engines ahead of time during off hours by creating static versions of the pages using the same mechanism with phantom.js and consequently serve the static pages to google bots. Preprocessing can be done with some simple app that can parse <a> tags. In this case handling 404 is easier since you can simply check for the existence of the static file with a name that contains url path.
If you use #! hash bang syntax for your site links a similar scenario applies, except that the rewrite url server engine would look out for _escaped_fragment_ in the url and would format the url to your url scheme.
There are a couple of integrations of node.js with phantom.js on github and you can use node.js as the web server to produce html output.
Here are a couple of examples using phantom.js for seo:
http://backbonetutorials.com/seo-for-single-page-apps/
http://thedigitalself.com/blog/seo-and-javascript-with-phantomjs-server-side-rendering
If you're using Rails, try poirot. It's a gem that makes it dead simple to reuse mustache or handlebars templates client and server side.
Create a file in your views like _some_thingy.html.mustache.
Render server side:
<%= render :partial => 'some_thingy', object: my_model %>
Put the template your head for client side use:
<%= template_include_tag 'some_thingy' %>
Rendre client side:
html = poirot.someThingy(my_model)
To take a slightly different angle, your second solution would be the correct one in terms of accessibility...you would be providing alternative content to users who cannot use javascript (those with screen readers, etc.).
This would automatically add the benefits of SEO and, in my opinion, would not be seen as a 'naughty' technique by Google.
Interesting. I have been searching around for viable solutions but it seems to be quite problematic.
I was actually leaning more towards your 2nd approach:
Let the server provide a special website only for the search engine
bots. If a normal user visits http://example.com/my_path the server
should give him a JavaScript heavy version of the website. But if the
Google bot visits, the server should give it some minimal HTML with
the content I want Google to index.
Here's my take on solving the problem. Although it is not confirmed to work, it might provide some insight or idea's for other developers.
Assume you're using a JS framework that supports "push state" functionality, and your backend framework is Ruby on Rails. You have a simple blog site and you would like search engines to index all your article index and show pages.
Let's say you have your routes set up like this:
resources :articles
match "*path", "main#index"
Ensure that every server-side controller renders the same template that your client-side framework requires to run (html/css/javascript/etc). If none of the controllers are matched in the request (in this example we only have a RESTful set of actions for the ArticlesController), then just match anything else and just render the template and let the client-side framework handle the routing. The only difference between hitting a controller and hitting the wildcard matcher would be the ability to render content based on the URL that was requested to JavaScript-disabled devices.
From what I understand it is a bad idea to render content that isn't visible to browsers. So when Google indexes it, people go through Google to visit a given page and there isn't any content, then you're probably going to be penalised. What comes to mind is that you render content in a div node that you display: none in CSS.
However, I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter if you simply do this:
<div id="no-js">
<h1><%= #article.title %></h1>
<p><%= #article.description %></p>
<p><%= #article.content %></p>
</div>
And then using JavaScript, which doesn't get run when a JavaScript-disabled device opens the page:
$("#no-js").remove() # jQuery
This way, for Google, and for anyone with JavaScript-disabled devices, they would see the raw/static content. So the content is physically there and is visible to anyone with JavaScript-disabled devices.
But, when a user visits the same page and actually has JavaScript enabled, the #no-js node will be removed so it doesn't clutter up your application. Then your client-side framework will handle the request through it's router and display what a user should see when JavaScript is enabled.
I think this might be a valid and fairly easy technique to use. Although that might depend on the complexity of your website/application.
Though, please correct me if it isn't. Just thought I'd share my thoughts.
Use NodeJS on the serverside, browserify your clientside code and route each http-request's(except for static http resources) uri through a serverside client to provide the first 'bootsnap'(a snapshot of the page it's state). Use something like jsdom to handle jquery dom-ops on the server. After the bootsnap returned, setup the websocket connection. Probably best to differentiate between a websocket client and a serverside client by making some kind of a wrapper connection on the clientside(serverside client can directly communicate with the server). I've been working on something like this: https://github.com/jvanveen/rnet/
Use Google Closure Template to render pages. It compiles to javascript or java, so it is easy to render the page either on the client or server side. On the first encounter with every client, render the html and add javascript as link in header. Crawler will read the html only but the browser will execute your script. All subsequent requests from the browser could be done in against the api to minimize the traffic.
This might help you : https://github.com/sharjeel619/SPA-SEO
Logic
A browser requests your single page application from the server,
which is going to be loaded from a single index.html file.
You program some intermediary server code which intercepts the client
request and differentiates whether the request came from a browser or
some social crawler bot.
If the request came from some crawler bot, make an API call to
your back-end server, gather the data you need, fill in that data to
html meta tags and return those tags in string format back to the
client.
If the request didn't come from some crawler bot, then simply
return the index.html file from the build or dist folder of your single page
application.
I am working on an application which fetches HTML content from the server and displays it to the user. The content fetched from the server is a complete HTML document. I have used UiBinder to specify UI for the view.
<g:HTMLPanel ui:field="mainPanel" styleName="ap-mainPanel">
</g:HTMLPanel>
In the view I have setViewerContent(String content) method:
public void setViewerContent( String content )
{
mainPanel.setStyleName( "ap-mainPanel ap-scrollPanel" ); //$NON-NLS-1$
SafeHtml safeHtmlContent = SafeHtmlUtils.fromString( content );
mainPanel.getElement().setInnerSafeHtml(safeHtmlContent);
}
When I run this I am seeing the source of the HTML document with all the markups. If I use setInnerHtml() then the document is displayed correctly. Static Code Analysis rules for the code base do not allow usage of setInnerHtml(). Can someone suggest any remedies ?
From the javadoc (emphasis mine):
Returns a SafeHtml containing the escaped string.
You'll want to use fromTrustedString if you trust your server, or SimpleHtmlSanitizer.sanitizeHtml() (or your own HTML sanitizer) if you don't.
I have a textarea in my page that is a HTML input field. The intention is to allow the user to register a confirmation HTML that will be shown in their users' browser after a certain action is taken place. You can imagine it as the confirmation of paypal after you pay something and it redirects you to a website that says "Thanks for your purchase". This is already implemented alright, but now I'm thinking about the user's security(XSS/SQL Injection).
What I want to know is how to filter out certain html tags such as <script> <embed> <object> safely inside my controller post action, so if I detect that there is a malicious html inside the HTML, I'll stop execution before saving. Right now I am doing like this:
[CustomHandleError]
[HttpPost]
[ValidateAntiForgeryToken]
[AccessDeniedAuthorize(Roles = "Admin,CreateMerchant")]
public ActionResult Create(MerchantDTO merchantModel)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
if (!IsSafeConfirmationHtml(merchantModel.ConfirmationHtml))
{
ModelState.AddModelError("ConfirmationHtml", "Unallowed HTML tags inputted");
return View("Create", merchantModel);
}
.
.
.
}
}
and my IsSafeConfirmationHTML is defined as
private bool IsSafeConfirmationHtml(string html)
{
if (html.ToLower().Contains("<script") || html.ToLower().Contains("<embed") || html.ToLower().Contains("<object"))
{
return false;
}
return true;
}
Is there a smarter, cleaner way to do this? I mean, I don't want to get false positives blocking the words "object", "script", etc, but I also don't want to be fooled by encodings that translate "<" to "%3C" or such...
Ontopic: does spacing inside tags works? Example: < script > alert("1"); < / script >?
So one thing you could do to defeat the encoding attack would be to run UrlDecode and HtmlDecode (html decode is probably superfluous, but it depends on what you do with the script) on it.
Another thing to speed up your checking would be to turn to a precompiled regex.
private static Regex disallowedHtml = new Regex(#"script|embed|object",
RegexOptions.IgnoreCase);
private bool IsSafeConfirmationHtml(string html)
{
Match match = disallowedHtml.Match(html);
return !match.success;
}
The static Regex instance cuts out most of the overhead of regex's for every run but the first one, making the regex match much faster than running 3 separate contains. You could make the regex complex enough to search for opening angle brackets, html entities and url encoded chars, match any whitespace between those chars and the actual tag name etc. etc. The Microsoft regex info has gotten quite good over the years.
I still wouldn't say this makes you 100% safe from a user (uploader? customer? the right word depends on what your business model is) running an XSS or injection attack against visitors to your site. They could point to an image or a css file that returns as mime-type x-application, or some such. And HTML is changing pretty rapidly these days. The best way to guarantee against that is to have a human involved in an approval process as well, but humans make mistakes and computers can be fooled, and there's no law that says those two events can't happen at the same time. But you are right to put some safeguards in place.
I have a LoginModel for my Login Action, but I'm wanting to use just HTML.
Example...
public class LoginModel
{
[Required]
public string Email { get;set; }
}
in my HTML, I have
<input type="text" value="" name="Email">
This is because I'm going to be storing my HTML in my database, problem I'm having is, how do I get model validation without using Html.ValidationSummary()?
I was hoping I could just do <div class="validation-summary-errors"></div>
As this is what is in the HTML, but does not work..
Ideas?
Regardless of where you store your HTML the validation is done on the client side. There are various posts on how to use the virtual path provider to store your views somewhere else (DB) and then validation should still work fine. I think I'm missing why it's not working for you though so I have to imagine you aren't using the path provider to find your views.
Edit
Seems you want to inject messages into a Div. This wont happen automaticaly unless you work some magic in the path provider. Use your own helper method in the view to avoid hacks or just use what's provided by default. If you really want to do it render your view in your controlllet and search for your Div pattern to replace.
custom ValidationForMessage helper removing css element
Note Darin's method
var expression = ExpressionHelper.GetExpressionText(ex);
var modelName = htmlHelper.ViewContext.ViewData.TemplateInfo.GetFullHtmlFieldName(expression);
var modelState = htmlHelper.ViewData.ModelState[modelName];
without access to ViewContext in your controller you can only render your html for your View. However, somewhere in your view you need (as far as I can tell) a helper method to stick your error collection into ViewData.
Your Virtual Path Provider may have to inject this helper method into your view text so it is there for Razor to parse. Actually - duh. This may be much easier. Your provider may be able to just simply read your html from the database, find the div, and inject the #Html.ValidationSummary into that div. I believe this would work. Why not just put the validation summary in there though if its going to end up there in the end anyways (essentially)