Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Added info about CMS limitation and link highlight #1084

Closed

Conversation

PrecisionWordcraft
Copy link
Contributor

Users should know that websites served by CMSes often won't include the static HTML necessary for validation to succeed. That info has been added. Also added what successful validation looks like and noted possible delay in seeing the link color change.

Users should know that websites served by CMSes often won't include the static HTML necessary for validation to succeed. That info has been added. Also added what successful validation looks like and noted possible delay in seeing the link color change.
@@ -79,8 +79,11 @@ If you put an HTTPS link in your profile metadata, Mastodon checks if that link

More precisely, Mastodon will validate the link under the following conditions:
- Since 4.0: the hostname does not change after IDN normalization
- the link to your Mastodon profile is added to a static HTML page used in your site. Websites served via Javascript-heavy content management systems such as StoryBlok often do not include static HTML, but check with your site developer
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is inaccurate. All that is required is the rel=me attribute. Some CMSs may support this attribute, some may not. I haven't heard of a "StoryBlok" system before but it doesn't seem well known or common enough to mention explicitly, and I wouldn't want to give free advertising to some to some random proprietary product.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

See commit message. I was advised by my site developer to add the link to static HTML, and that's why validation is now working for me. Might as well guide users of CMS to a solution that could work!

But I agree that there's no need to mention StoryBlok specifically.

Alternately, validation will occur if the resolved page's *first* link has an `href` value that redirects to your Mastodon profile's URL (such as through a link shortener).
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why change this line?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Changed back to original

Alternately, validation will occur if the resolved page's *first* link has an `href` value that redirects to your Mastodon profile's URL (such as through a link shortener).

If validation succeeds, the link to your website will turn green on your profile page. This may take a few minutes even after you deploy the update to your site's HTML.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In fact, Mastodon won't "re-check" your page if it fails validation the first time. So you'll need to remove and then and re-add the link to your profile after making the change to your site's HTML before it will check again to see if it's been updated.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This was not my experience last night, but it's a more orderly set of steps. Made the change, and removed the newline from the end of the file.

I think it's still good guidance to point users to static HTML files for link inclusion. That's what did the trick for me, because before that, I had the link inside a StoryBlok content block and verification didn't work. 

But I agree that there's no real need to mention a specific platform.
1) Clarified procedure to follow if verification fails
2) Removed newline
trwnh added a commit to trwnh/mastodocs that referenced this pull request Dec 7, 2022
Gargron pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 14, 2022
* fix relrefs around trends and related entities

* revert moving caption-links to middle of page

* hide empty menu in table of contents

* clarify edit notifs are only for boosted statuses

* following/followers no longer need auth

* fix typo

* specify cooldown period for account Move

* use the correct cooldown

* add missing parameters to accounts/id/statuses

* link to account_statuses_filter.rb

* fix typo (#1072)

* fix typo (#1073)

* fix link to http sig spec (#1067)

* simply HTTP request examples in api methods docs

* add missing client_secret to oauth/token (#1062)

* Add any, all, none to hashtag timeline

* minor formatting changes

* Update signature requirements and advice

* fix public key -> private key

* clarify use of RSA with SHA256

* Add note about saving your profile after adding rel-me link

* v2 filters api

* comment out params that shouldn't be used in v2 filter api

* admin trends

* remove old todo

* canonical email blocks + scheduled statuses

* remove under-construction warnings from finished pages

* verify api method params with source code

* fix typo (#1088)

* fix broken caption-links (#1100)

* fix formatting of entities (#1094)

* Remove keybase section from user guide (#1093)

* fix typos (#1092)

* Verify limits are accurate (#1086)

* add mention of iframe limitation (#1084)

* Add CORS header to WEB_DOMAIN example (#1083)

* Fix typo (#1081)

* pin http sigs spec at draft 8

* Revert "pin http sigs spec at draft 8"

This reverts commit 9fd5f70.

* add case sensitivity warning to 4.0 roles

* Add url length note to bio (#1087)

* remove follow scope from examples (#1103)

* clarify usage of update_credentials to update profile fields

* add noindex to Account entitity

* remove required hint from technically not required property
@trwnh trwnh mentioned this pull request Dec 16, 2022
@Gargron Gargron closed this in #1110 Feb 7, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants