[TYPO3-core] Status of RFC: #9046: Nested domain linking with domain record on root page

[Tobias Liebig]

Hej,


Ernesto Baschny [cron IT] schrieb:
> Hi Ingmar,
> 
> thanks for the quick response!
> 
> Ingmar Schlecht schrieb:
> 
>>> So I find the bug in the patch is there that we use HTTP_HOST to decide
>>> if we should prepend another domain to the URL or not. 
> 
>> The problem is that it sometimes does depend on the current HTTP_HOST,
>> what link is rendered, e.g. whether a domain is prefixed or not.
>>
>> Say we have a tree like this:
>>
>> yahoo.com
>>   - finance (no special subdomain, accessible only through yahoo.com)
>>   - weather (weather.yahoo.com, no force flag set)
>>     * europe
>>     * asia
>>   - sports (sports.yahoo.com, force flag set)
>>     * soccer
>>     * tennis
>>
>> Now say you are on the european weather page using
>> yahoo.com/europe.XYZ.0.html, and want to link to the finance page: You
>> wouldn't have to prefix any domain, because you are already on yahoo.com.
> 
> But you can prefix it with the domain without doing any harm. So that
> the europe-page is always the same in the cache, no matter how you
> access it (yahoo.com/europe.XYZ.0.html,
> weather.yahoo.com/europe.XYZ.0.html). Links pointing to some page that
> doesn't share our own sys_domain get the prefix, the ones that share our
> sys_domain (in this case the weather-start-page, europe and asia) get
> relative links.

If you call "weather.yahoo.com/europe.XYZ.0.html" you don't want to left 
the site "weather.yahoo.com".
Even if the target page (e.g. asia) is (technically) reachable by 
"yahoo.com/asia.XYZ.0.html" *and* "weather.yahoo.com/europe.XYZ.0.html", 
you do not want to create a link to an external page (yahoo.com) if the 
target is reachable within the current domain "weather.yahoo.com"

Search Engine may value an external link differently then an internal link.

On the other hand your right, it *may* do no sense to make one page 
reachable through two different domains (duplicate content?).

As both points are right (as i think), we decided to let the user choose 
and implemented the "forced flag".


>> If you would instead use the weather.yahoo.com domain to access the
>> european weather page, the same link to finance would not work unless
>> you do explicitly prefix the domain yahoo.com.
> 
> Yes, which would be the case if you always prefix it instead of only if
> it doesn't match HTTP_HOST. I don't see the need to make different
> cached copies of the page to cope with that.

> 
>> So the very same page (the european weather page) would exist in two
>> possible ways, each of which needs to be cached separately.
>>
>> The only way around this would be always assuming the force flag to be
>> set, so we always assume and always make sure, that a domain is always
>> prefixed and we are on the closest domain to the current page. But that
>> way we would loose a lot of flexibility.
> 
> True, but I really don't see many people using not "forcing" a domain,
> as this will give penalities in Google (SEO), because you are providing
> the same content through different URLs. So this cannot be the
> recommended behaviour anyway.

i think there are two use cases of domain records (after this issue s 
solved)
- if you set the forced flag, you creating "sub sites" which works as a 
standalone page (like pages below "weather" are always reached by 
weather.yahoo.com)
- if you don't set the flag, you just create an "entry point" in a 
larger page.

many pages may want to use the first case. maybe we should set the 
forced flag by default? but this may change the behaviour of the domain 
records..


>>> We should simply
>>> match the PID of the sys_domain record used for the destination page
>>> link with the sys_domain records PID from the current page. If they are
>>> the same, the link is "relative". To decide that we don't even need to
>>> consider the users HTTP_HOST (which only decides which page to render).
> 
>> You have to keep in mind that one page can be accessed through different
>> domains.
> 
> I already did that, and I think that we only need to differenciate it
> like I explained above so that we always get the same page in the cache
> no matter how it was accessed.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ernesto

and thanks, Ernesto, for troubling on this issue here. This will help to 
get another point of view on this issue and help to do the things right :-)

If somebody else want to comment: do not hesitate.

regards
   tobias