Browser preview in localhost - sublimetext2

I realize they're ways to open files in a browser (builds, plugins, and packages).
What I want to do is have the file open locally.I maybe missing something because it used to work. RIght now the preview generates the following in the navigation file:///Applications/MAMP/htdocs/xxxx.dev/index.html instead of localhost
I know since I am using LiveReload, I could just type in I know since I am using LiveReload, I could just type in localhost once and it would refresh afterwards on it's own. And for that matter I could do that in all my testing browsers. But that would mean at least 3 other times!
Come on there has to be folks like me who have watched Paul Irish and want to be efficient!
I have been searching for a few days and don't feel like going back to coda2...Please help!once and it would refresh afterwards on it's own. And for that matter I could do that in all my testing browsers. But that would mean at least 3 other times!
Come on there has to be folks like me who have watched Paul Irish and want to be efficient!
I have been searching for a few days and don't feel like going back to coda2...Please help!

Perhaps this plugin will help you?
https://github.com/wattsin/Sublime-Text---Open-And-View

Related

Extension like Picture-in-Picture (by Google) but for any part of the browser and not just videos?

Hiyah!
I'm sorry for this strange post, just need help articulating my thoughts into something practical. I really could use an extension to basically select any part of the browser window and use it as a floating window (always on top of other windows).
It'd be awesome if something like this existed and I'd love a name in that case! If not, maybe any of you know of similar open source projects that I could take a look at? I'd try to write my own extension if there's nothing like that, so basically could use any keywords to simplify my research. I've been learning full stack web dev for a few months now, so I think it's in realm of possibilities for me.
Thanks for your time!

Upgrading WordPress broke my site

I upgraded my website to wordpress 3.4 and it's caused an enormous amount of damage to my site. Half of my posts weren't accessible on the site and 404d, and pages 3 and 4 of my posts on my website 404d as well.
I backed up before upgrading (thank god I had a gut feeling there'd be headaches) using PressBackup. After restoring, I managed to finally be able see my other posts that were missing before, but there's a still a problem. Pages 3 and 4 still don't work ie http://www.winvenue.com/page/3/. Interestingly all the posts that disappeared were from page 3 and page 4.
I'm not sure why I got all these issues, and it's really annoying because this is an active website will hundreds of readers. I'd really like the get this fixed, any help is really appreciated. Thanks
Without knowing about your specific setup, there's some general things you can try.
I'd check the database to see if the posts are really there. If they are, see if the ones that show are any different for the ones that aren't shown.
Then disable all plugins etc to see if any of those can cause problems with the new version. If it works without plugins, turn them on one by one to see which one(s) cause problems.
Restoring from backup probably dosen't include the .htaccess file which responsible on the permalinks.
Try and regenerate your .htaccess file using settings->permalinks->save or manually
Try setting the following field on Settings->Reading (wp-admin/options-reading.php)
Blog pages show at most [5] posts
It could be that your pagination thinks there are 2 posts per page when there are actually 4 (for example) which would cause this effect.
I've also experienced the same issue when upgrading, seems like others as well, when I did a search on Google. Try searching for a draft version of the missing pages, usually WordPress will backup automatically while your typing. Also try the Trash folder, you never know. You may also need to possibly revert back to an older backup file, which may contain the missing pages.
Plugins maybe change your permalink rewrite rules. So, try to deactivate your plugin, all of them. Then reset your permalinks: Setting > permalinks, don't change anything but saving it. Check your site, if it's normal, then it must be one of the plugins.
If it doesn't work, before reactivating the plugins, change to default theme (twenty eleven) andd see if it works with it.
For all I can see, this kind of problems most often come from misconfigured internal rewrite rules.
EDIT: Have you tried to not use pagination?
You can also try to debug by deactivate the canonical redirection by adding:
remove_action( 'template_redirect', 'redirect_canoncial ')
on your functions.php. This will disable the internal URL redirection.
upgrade your permalinks settings

What's the most efficient way to add social media "like" and "+1" buttons to your site?

The task sounds trivial but bear with me.
These are the buttons I'm working with:
Google (+1)
Facebook (Like)
Twitter (Tweet)
LinkedIn (Share)
With a little testing on webpagetest.org I found that it's incredibly inefficient if you grab the snippet from each of these services to place these buttons on your page. In addition to the images themselves you're also effectively downloading several JavaScript files (in some cases multiple JavaScript files for just one button). The total load time for the Facebook Like button and its associated resources can be as long as 2.5 seconds on a DSL connection.
Now it's somewhat better to use a service like ShareThis as you can get multiple buttons from one source. However, they don't have proper support for Google +1. If you get the code from them for the Google +1 button, it's still pulling all those resources from Google.
I have one idea which involves loading all the buttons when a generic looking "Share" button is clicked. That way it's not adding to the page load time. I think this can be accomplished using the code described here as a starting point. This would probably be a good solution but I figured I'd ask here before going down that road.
I found one possible solution if you don't care about the dynamic aspect of these buttons. In other words, if you don't care to show how many people have +1'd or liked your page, you can just use these links...
https://plusone.google.com/_/+1/confirm?hl=en&url={URL}
http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u={URL}
http://twitter.com/home/?status={STATUS}
http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url={URL}&title={TITLE}&summary={SUMMARY}&source={SOURCE}
You'd just have to insert the appropriate parameters. It doesn't get much simpler or lightweight than that. I'd still use icons for each button of course, but I could actually use CSS sprites in this case for even more savings. I may actually go this route.
UPDATE
I implemented this change and the page load time went from 4.9 seconds to 3.9 seconds on 1.5 Mbps DSL. And the number of requests went from 82 to 63.
I've got a few more front-end optimizations to do but this was a big step in the right direction.
I wouldn't worry about it, and here's why: if the websites in question have managed their resources properly - and, come on, it's Google and Facebook, etc... - the browser should cache them after the first request. You may see the effect in a service where the cache is small or disabled, but, in all likelihood, all of your clients will already have those resources in their cache before they ever reach your page.
And, just because I was curious, here's another way:
Here's the snippet of relevant code from StackOverflow's facebook share javascript:
facebook:function(c,k,j){k=a(k,"sfb=1");c.click(function(){e("http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u="+k+"&ref=fbshare&t="+j,"sharefacebook","toolbar=1,status=1,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,width=626,height=436")})}}}();
Minified, because, hey, I didn't bother to rework the code.
It looks like the StackOverflow engineers are simply calling up the page on click. That means that it's just text until you click it, which dynamically pulls everything in lazily.

Any Idea on on how does the HTML 5 Terminal work?

I happend to stumble upon this site
http://www.htmlfivewow.com/demos/terminal/terminal.html
It is simply amazing. I was just wondering on how is the terminal being emulated in the browser ? Can we embed the terminal in the browser and use it normally ? If so how?
i found this link which kinda enlightens the architecture http://www.htmlfivewow.com/slide33
But one thing aint clear what exactly is CRX-LEss Web app ? its completly new term , i havent herd of it before ( googling dint quite help me )
The actual presentation for the demos is from the Google I/O conference, and the talk was called HTML5: The Wow and the How. If you watch the video, they go over everything that's implemented in the terminal demo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlwY6_W4VG8
It's very cool stuff.
A great thing about the web is that on any page you can View Source. Give it a shot. The source is well-structured and though it could be better-commented it's pretty straightforward. Even if you don't understand it in its entirety it will give you a place to start searching for the techniques used.
With JavaScript, the DOM, and <canvas> (which, I should mention, isn't used in this instance) just about anything can be created, from terminal emulators to Nintendo emulators.
A CRX-Less web app is an unzipped Chrome extension and points to the manifest.json file for the extension. It is an experimental feature and must be enabled in the chrome:flags page. https://developers.google.com/chrome/apps/docs/no_crx explains how the process works.

Ways to make a voice call from a web page?

My app will look like this: two people enter a chat or something else in a page and have a skype name or Gtalk. Is it possible to make an anchor to call a voice client from the web page? Is there a flash fallback for this?
I know the skype: prefix that actually doesn't work for me in Ubuntu, but should work for Windows users.
I primarily target PCs & macs, but supporting mobile platforms with a solution will be nice.
For Downvoters: any comments why you do this? Please bother to explain me the obvious thing that I don't know and make this question.
Your question is much too complex. Instead of answering it, which would take several pages, the person might as well write the application him/herself and sell it.
You have to divide your problem in tiny bits, and have a question for each one.
You could at least start with looking at gTalk API and Skype API to see what you need yourself.