Member
Highlight.js relocation fails, doesn't work
New Customer...
Extensively searched the Forum - found good advice already, to earlier issues. Need advise on this one...
Zoom: Professional, Version: 6.0, Build: 1009
Server: Linux, Method: CGI
Downloaded 02/07/2009: /Installed/Configured Zoom to index my 15,000 page website this Saturday. Impressive so far!
Need highlighting.
Setup all the config options correctly. Documents include the required html/scripts.
Works fine!... if I include the highlight.js file in the SAME DIRECTORY as the document to be indexed, and leave the searched document's script (include) example set per the manual's example.
But when I move the highlight.js file to another director, of course, changing the "src" script include--- Highlighting is no longer provided.
Certainly a neophytes problem - but I need help.
Please advise.
Administrator
It should not really matter what folder the JS file is in, as long as you have the correct path set in each HTML file.
My first guess would be simply that the path to the JS file is wrong.
Member
Highlight.js relocation fails, doesn't work
That's been my assumption, as well, and I assume I am doing something stupid, but have been unable to figure it out.
I know the highlight.js file is in the cgi directory and I am using the following in my search results PAGE. NOTE: As stated in my first post, if I change the Script below to "src=highlight.js" (since I have another copy of the script in the same directory as my searched PAGE), highlighting works as advertised.
<LINK href="../../../../inc/ubsource.css" type=text/css rel=stylesheet>
<script type="text/javascript" src="../../../../cgi/highlight.js"></script>
</HEAD>
<body background="../../../../images/wall01a.gif" bgcolor="#bae9f8" text="#003399" onLoad="highlight();">
<script type="text/javascript" src="../../../../pahdr.js"></script>
The search form can be invoked at:
www.theosoft.info/cgi/search.cgi
Appreciate your response...
Member
Found the problem. Poor choice of directory for highlight.js.
I put it in the 'cgi' folder and the server was blocking the access request. Moved it to newly created folder and all is well.
Appreciate your response!
SUPER PRODUCT BTW...
Member
Regarding the new highlight.js file.
This does not work for me.Improved highlighting in context descriptions: The highlighting in context descriptions has been improved such that words matching due to stemming, synonyms, or accent insensitivity options enabled can be highlighted.
Any suggestions?
Administrator
Rather that just saying "does not work", can you give some details of what doesn't work. Maybe even an example. Are you sure you are even using the new JS file?
Administrator
cardiogr - the feature you are quoting is for highlighting in the context descriptions. This is the text that appears on the search results page.
This does not apply for the "highlight.js" javascript which is used to highlight words on the actual page. There is no simple way to implement such a feature in the "highlight.js" javascript without compromising download time for each page (by increasing size of the script significantly), and execution time (due to the computation needed to determine variations of all the words on the page) so we have no plans of doing this at this point.
Member
Thank you for your answer,
I understand that calculating all the possible synonyms using javascript and highlighting them will slow down the loading of the webpage.
If however a webpage has only a synonym matched (and not the original word searched), then you could change the generated link and instead of ?zoom_highlight=original_keyword it could be ?zoom_highlight=synonym.
Could something like that be implementable?
Administrator
There can be dozens of matching words on a single page once stemming, synonyms, and accent insensitivity are taken into account. Even just with synonyms there can be multiple matches. While not technically impossible to deal with all of these the costs would seem to out weight the benefit.
Newbie
Highlighting variants
How about passing only what is shown in the "hit list" summary for a given file? That way you're only dealing with a finite set (which you already have to enumerate to create the summary), and you avoid having no highlighting at all in files that do not contain the original search term. As it is, the highlighting appears to be "broken" on many pages.
Thanks
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote