What I would like to do is pre populate an SMS similar to how you can populate the subject line of an email with ?subject on mailto: links.
I don't want to automatically send the SMS, or the recipients, just the copy (which the user could edit). From what I've read it looks like sms: only allows by specifying the recipients, or nothing at all.
Can this be done with sms:? Or does it require native code (for iOS/Android)?
The answer to this question is now yes. This:
sms://+19875550198;?&body=This%20is%20a%20test%20message.
works just fine in Messages on both iOS and macOS. Copy and paste that link into your browser to test it on your system. I haven't tested this on other systems, but based on this answer, ;?& seems useful for cross-device compatibility.
An example of how we're using this can be seen in this answer. Unfortunately I couldn't figure out a way to populate the optional subject field in iOS.
Short answer: No.
Although this would be helpful for web developers, neither Android nor iOS allows this to be done through urls.
Apple has a list of recognized url schemes here.
If you're developing an app with phonegap however, this can be done programmatically using plugins like SMSComposer for iOS and SMSPlugin for Android.
Related
I am clear that in ANDROID there are restrictions to obtain the IMEI, but I need to guarantee that the project I have is installed only on allowed cell phones. For this I think that a unique code is necessary that is generated from the cell phone (equal to the IMEI) and that is stored in parallel in the server's database to validate that it is correct.
Is there any way to simulate this condition from CN1?
Google play will block the installation of your app. If you still want to do it you can use:
String IMEI = Display.getInstance().getProperty("IMEI");
Notice that you would need to add the "read phone state" permission to the manifest for this to work.
I don't think this is a good idea though. How will you find the IMEI in the first place to perform the restriction?
Blocking installation isn't a practical option, you should block access so unauthorized users won't be able to launch the app and that's more portable too.
Thank you Mr. Shai, my project blocks access to unauthorized users, but there is the alternative of installing the application on another cell phone and that is what I want to avoid.
Something important, the following link talks about an alternative to have a unique code, but it is totally oriented to android and I do not handle it and I do not know how to implement it in CN1. I copy the link to see if its integration is possible.
Android 10: IMEI no longer available on API 29. Looking for alternatives
I would like to (programmatically) convert a text file with questions to a Google form. I want to specify the questions and the questiontypes and their options. Example: the questiontype scale should go from 1 to 7 and should have the label 'not important' for 1 and 'very important' for 7.
I was looking into the Google Spreadsheet API but did not see a solution.
(The Google form API at http://code.lancepollard.com/introducing-the-google-form-api is not an answer to this question)
Google released API for this: https://developers.google.com/apps-script/reference/forms/
This service allows scripts to create, access, and modify Google Forms.
Until Google satisfies this feature request (star the feature on Google's site if you want to vote for it), you could try a non-API approach.
iMacros allows you to record, modify and play back macros that control your web browser. My experiments with Google Drive showed that the basic version (without DirectScreen technology) doesn't record macros properly. I tried it with both the plugin for IE (basic and advanced click mode) and Chrome (the latter has limited iMacro support). FYI, I was able to get iMacros IE plug-in to create questions on mentimeter.com, but the macro recorder gets some input fields wrong (which requires hacking of the macro, double-checking the ATTR= of the TAG commands with the 'Inspect element' feature of Chrome, for example).
Assuming that you can get the TAG commands to produce clicks in the right places in Google Drive, the approach is that you basically write (ideally record) a macro, going through the steps you need to create the form as you would using a browser. Then the macro can be edited (you can use variables in iMacros, get the question/questiontype data from a CSV or user-input dialogs, etc.). Looping in iMacros is crude, however. There's no EOF for a CSV (you basically have to know how many lines are in the file and hard-code the loop in your macro).
There's a way to integrate iMacro calls with VB, etc., but I'm not sure if it's possible with the free versions. There's another angle where you generate code (Javascript) from a macro, and then modify it from there.
Of course, all of these things are more fragile than an API approach long-term. Google could change its presentation layer and it will break your macros.
Seems like Apps Script now has a REST API and SDK's for it. Through Apps Script you can generate Google Forms. This API was really hard to find by trying to google for it and I haven't yet tested it myself, but I am going to build something with it today (hopefully). So far everything looks good.
EDIT: Seems like the REST API I am using works very well for fully automated usage.
In March(2022) google released REST API for google form. API allows basic crud operation & also added support for registering watches on the form to notify whenever either form is updated or a new response is received.
As of now (March 2016), Google Forms APIs allow us to create forms and store them in Google Drive. However, Forms APIs do not allow one programmatically modify the form (such as modify content, add or delete questions, pre-filled data, etc). In other words, the form is static. In order to serve custom, external APIs are needed.
Whenever i create a contact form in my Joomla! 3.3.6, some script appears in the the page's HTML code that contains many words Joomla in it. I'd like to change those Joomla words and replace them with another words (i.e. Foo) for some security issue. I'd like to know whether or not i'm able to do so and how.
That script is:
<script>(function(){var strings={"JLIB_FORM_FIELD_INVALID":"\u0641\u06cc\u0644\u062f \u0646\u0627\u0645\u0639\u062a\u0628\u0631: "};if(typeof Joomla=='undefined'){Joomla={};Joomla.JText=strings;}
else{Joomla.JText.load(strings);}})();</script>
I have no idea whether a plugin or an extension creates it or not.
Thank you
Regards
This script seems to be translating some text required for the form to use in its javascript, eg validation messages. It does this using a javascript version of JText, which is part of core Joomla. There is some info on how that works here. Weirdly, there seems to be little information in the official Joomla documentation about it.
The main JText function it is calling appears here: media/system/js/core.js
I'm sure it would be possible to write a plug-in to remove this script before the page is rendered and then to translate any untranslated text with your own scripts. However, I'm not sure I see any security benefit in doing this so it seems a waste of time.
Ultimately, someone sniffing a site for what it is built in is far more likely to see if core files exist by going direct to places like media/system/js/core.js, rather than to scan the code for the word "Joomla" - which would trigger a lot of false-positives (any site which just mentions Joomla) and negatives (any page which doesn't have a form on it). It also does not reveal the version of Joomla, which is the info a hacker would more likely be after.
I think you have to search for the script (i.e via Notepad++) in the whole directory. It must be a plugin for the contact form that has some inline script in it.
also do you use any special third party plugin or so? that might be the source of it.
PS: also i had some similar experience, i don't know exactly how i got rid of those words, but like you, i wanted to do that to hide the fact that i'm using joomla for security.
Its actually Joomla who add this, from the file: Joomlainstall/libraries/joomla/document/html/renderer/head.php
And load it globaly from:
Joomlainstall/libraries/cms/html/formbehavior.php
The developer ad that code by using the function, JText, for an example:
JText::_( 'COM_CONTACT_EMAIL_FORM' )
In my case it was the plugin ContactUs Form who add the javascript. If JText is not used, it is not loaded. If I disabled the plugin, the javascript was then not loaded. If you have that plugin enabled, my be try an other contact form?
For security reson it is bad programming by the developer off Joomla, for sure.
I have a ContextualMenuPlugin and an application. When user clicks the option from context menu i need to send a message to my app. In windows i achieved this using sendmessage() function. But i'm new to MAC OS X. Can any one please help me, by giving some api's or functions which will enlighten this situation?
You have plenty of choices on how to get messages into an application on your Macintosh.
The ways I'm thinking of include Apple Events or sockets or kqueues, but there's other stuff I've never even worked with that might even be more useful & appropriate (such as Distributed Objects). Check out this duplicate and/or related question and maybe you'll see a useful answer in there for you that you can build upon.
B.T.W.: how did you construct your Contextual Menu Plugin? Is it in Carbon or Objective C or is it some codeless plugin or plist or? The answer to that question probably will dictate a lot towards how you will be able to talk from your plugin to your app.
If you want to control just your application you might want to look into AppleScript. Using that solution has the added benefit that your users could also use it to automate things via scripting.
I am researching best practices for developing 'classic' style mobile sites, i.e., mobile sites that are delivered and experienced as mobile HTML pages vs. small JavaScript applications (jQuery Mobile, Sencha, etc.).
There are two prevailing approaches:
Deliver the same page structure (HTML) to all mobile devices, then use CSS media queries or JavaScript to improve the experience for more capable devices.
Deliver an entirely different page structure (and possibly content) to devices with enhanced capabilities.
I'm specifically interested in best practices for the second approach. Two good examples are:
MIT's mobile site: different for Blackberries and feature(less) phones than for iOS & Android devices, but available at the same URLs -- http://m.mit.edu/
CNN's mobile site: ditto -- http://m.cnn.com/
I'd like to hear from people here at SO have actually worked on something like this, and can explain what the best practices are for delivering this type of device-dependent structure/content/experience.
I don't need a primer on mobile user-agent detection, or WURFL, or any of the concepts covered in other (great) SO threads like this one. I've used jQuery Mobile and Sencha Touch and I'm familiar with most approaches for delivering the final mobile experience, so no pointers required there either thanks.
What I really would like to understand is: how these specific types of experiences are delivered in terms of server-side detection and delivery based on user-agent groups -- where there's one stripped down page structure (different HTML) delivered to one group of devices, and another richer type of HTML document delivered to newer devices, but both at the same sub-domain / URLs.
Hope that all makes sense. Many thanks in advance.
At NPR, we use a server side 'application' to serve up the correct html/css/etc depending on if the user is on a high-end device or a lower-tier phone.
So, when a mobile device pings an npr.org page, our servers use a user-agent detection method to point them to the corresponding m.npr.org. Once directed to the m.npr.org URL, the web app - which is written in groovy, but I think could potentially be a number of things - sends back either the touch version of the site or the more simple, stripped down content. The choice of the web app is made based at least somewhat on the WURFL data.
I don't have enough rep points to post a comparison with screenshots, so I'll have to point you to the sites themselves.
You can see this in your desktop browser by typing in m.npr.org to see the stripped down site. And you can override the default device detection by adding the parameter ?devicegate.client=iPhone_3_0 to see the touch version you would see if you just went to npr.org on your smartphone. If you view the source, you can see how different html & css is being served at the same subdomain.
Hope it helps seeing something like this in the wild. Does that make sense?
A common way to detect which format a mobile device needs is the accept header:
application/xhtml+xml > xhtml
text/vnd.wap.wml > Old wml wap pages
.
.
.
On newer devices which can handle all the desktop html formats, you can use the user agent.
Then you have to ask yourself what you want to do:
Switch to another Stylesheet (only works with newer devices).
Switch to another view logic, like building wml page templates.
Switch to a complete other page.
I think the second approach is the best one. Many web frameworks make it easy to switch to another view logic without rewriting the rest (the mvc pattern in its glory).
I have two examples for you.
Read up on how facebook achieves this using XHP to give abstract different output for different markups: One Mobile Site to Serve Thousands of Phones
There will be a lot of good stuff in their actual implementation which I wish was available.
I use a framework called HawHaw, which let's you write your app once (in PHP Objects or XML files) and it outputs the correct markup to the device based on a few checks (accept header, agent string etc).