Making ubuntu.com responsive(design.canonical.com)
design.canonical.com
Making ubuntu.com responsive
http://design.canonical.com/2014/03/making-ubuntu-com-responsive/
3 comments
Plain prerendered html5 with no JS was not available?
Where's the framework for that?
the great text files framework.
fenchurch
What makes you think www.ubuntu.com is not prerendered html5?
The page: http://design.canonical.com/2014/03/making-ubuntu-com-respon...
Shows as 112 KB by lori in FF. Really? 1/10 MB for a page of text?
jQuery was probably already cached on your end, all 300kb of it
Yes, probably. but that means there is still 100+KB being sent over the wire each time...
And since
http://design.canonical.com/2014/03/making-ubuntu-com-respon...
goes 404, I assume there's a handler that built the page on the fly.
No?
http://design.canonical.com/2014/03/making-ubuntu-com-respon...
goes 404, I assume there's a handler that built the page on the fly.
No?
No, e.g. I use this rule in my .htaccess on my blog:
http://tycho.ws/music or http://tycho.ws/music.html
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !^.*\.html$
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ %{REQUEST_FILENAME}.html
http://tycho.ws/music or http://tycho.ws/music.html
ok, so where's the .html file for that page?
I went to http://www.canonical.com/index.html and there was a 404.
Surely there should be something there...
Surely there should be something there...
There's also no robots.txt... Odd for a static site don't you think?
I suppose it isn't obvious from the rule I gave, but it doesn't necessarily have to even be web accessible. Why does it matter so much anyway?
[deleted]
[deleted]