Publish iWeb site to ftp root website.

I too went through the same pain that when I published my website

http://www.camper2hire.co.uk

It came up with the following

http://www.camper2hire.co.uk/camper2hire/Welcome.html

So trying to access the website www.camper2hire.co.uk just brought up a web hosting page.

However, rather than copy individual files I logged into my domain and just put a web alias
from www.camper2hire.co.uk to http://www.camper2hire.co.uk/camper2hire/Welcome.html

Problem solved much simpler than copying pages and ftp files indivudually.

Well, this does not really solve any problems that the original poster is trying to eliminate does it?

Your site url still shows as http://www.yourdomain.com/sitename/pagename.

This is what the original poster does not want - instead he wants http://www.yourdomain.com/pagename.html.

The way to do this is to publish to a folder and use Cyberduck to upload the contents of the Site folder rather than the Site folder itself. It does not mean that you have to manually upload every page individually - I agree that would take hours. However, what you can do from Cyberduck is to click on your Site folder and it will show the contents, but then just select all the contents and click on upload and it will upload all the pages in the correct order directly to the Public_html folder at the server. It does not take long at all done this way and also eliminates the problems of a url with yourdomain.com/sitename/pagename, which a lot of people posting here do not like.

This is what the original poster does not want - instead he wants http://www.yourdomain.com/pagename.html.

It's hard to tell what the original poster wants. The last thing he said was "I want www.square-kun.com to show the main page of the blog. " It does.

I understand the OPs problem. I had a similar question, but figured I'll have to live with it if I want the ease of iWeb and want the working RSS feeds...

I own a hosting account with 1and1, and use that account for all my websites.. 3 or 4. So I already created folders for each website. Say I have a site name abc, for which I own the domain www.abc.com and visiting this URL shows up my site which is located in /abc folder on my hosting account.
If I use iWeb, I create a site name abc, and when I publish it, I could choose to upload the site to root folder /, which will make iWeb think my URL would be www.abc.com/abc/Welcome.html, but in reality, it would be www.abc.com/Welcome.html and all my RSS feeds will be broken. Instead if I upload the abc site to /abc folder, the iWeb generated URLs will work, but my site will always have the /abc extension. like www.abc.com/abc/blog or www.abc.com/abc/Welcome.html......

I really wish apple fixes this and makes it a user selectable choice. The final URL to use should be user selectable.. like in my case. I want my URLs to look like www.abc.com/Welcome.html or www.abc.com/blog/

I am not really sure if I cleared the confusion, or deepened it.

pal 🙂

I want my URLs to look like www.abc.com/Welcome.html or www.abc.com/blog/

There is no confusion at all about this. iWeb has worked exactly the same way for over 3 years now, and all kinds of people have said they don't want to see the site name in the browser address bar but they still want the RSS to work. Maybe iWeb 4 will enable that, but I would not assume that this will be changed on the basis of the historical record...

The final URL to use should be user selectable..

The URL of your site is www.abc.com. As for what appears in the browser address bar, some site authors seem to care a lot about that, but I really wonder whether people who visit sites ever notice it . Look at the what is in your browser address bar right now.

The only real need for a short URL is for people to remember it so that they can get to your website.
If you have it advertised on your vehicle as ABC.com, people may remember it when they see you speeding down the freeway.
If, when they get to your website, they're looking at the URL in the browser then you must of built a heck of a boring website!

If iWeb users want to be able to publish to the root level of the host and not be forced inside a SITE NAME folder, iWeb should allow them too. I really don't what care if YOU or APPLE think it should be inside a folder.

Since Apple bothered to add FTP to iWeb they should have gone all the way and made it work the many host servers work, i.e. support '/public_html' publishing directly without a being inside a SITE NAME folder.

I don't care if "that is the way iWeb has always been". iWeb never had ftp support before iWeb '09.

I guess users will CONTINUE to have to use a stand alone FTP application when this SHOULD be able to be done within iWeb.

If, when they get to your website, they're looking at the URL in the browser then you must of built a heck of a boring website!

Very well put.

If iWeb users want to be able to publish to the root level of the host and not be forced inside a SITE NAME folder, iWeb should allow them too.

You can tell Apple what you want to see changed in the next version here:

http://www.apple.com/feedback/iweb.html

Yes, I am aware of that.

To sum up the issue, no you can't do that in iWeb '09. You still have to use a third party FTP client if you want to publish to the public_html/ folder and not to a SITE NAME folder.

To sum up the issue, no you can't do that in iWeb '09. You still have to use a third party FTP client if you want to publish to the public_html/ folder and not to a SITE NAME folder.

iWeb actually does NOT "publish to a sitename folder." The site created by iWeb always includes a sitename folder and an index.html file that goes with it. Anything less will have non-functioning RSS Subscribe buttons. What you want is for iWeb to offer the option of publishing a truncated version of its normal site structure with the RSS link adjusted so it will still work.

iWeb '09 will not upload to via FTP to the directly to 'public_html/'

iWeb will only upload site within the 'SITE NAME' folder.

This leads to www.SITENAME.com/SITENAME/about.html instead of www.SITENAME.com/about.html

If you have links that are www.SITENAME.com/about.html you have to go back and rename all of them and insert '/SITENAME'

I'm pretty sure you get my point...

iWeb '09 will not upload to via FTP to the directly to 'public_html/'

You don't seem to understand how these things work. iWeb's FTP indeed uploads everything that iWeb creates directly to public_html. You just don't like what iWeb creates.

This leads to www.SITENAME.com/SITENAME/about.html instead of www.SITENAME.com/about.html

Absolutely correct. This issue has been addressed thousands of times for years now. Of course the second SITENAME in the above is created by the site author -- he can also just call his site "s" and that what will appear in the browser address bar instead of the second SITENAME. And of course the url he gives out to people for his site is still just www.sitename.com.

If you have links that are www.SITENAME.com/about.html you have to go back and rename all of them and insert '/SITENAME'

Are you talking about links created earlier when you manually uploaded a truncated version of the site? It would probably be easier to just manually truncate your site again on the server, removing the sitename folder and the root level index.html.

If someone is here asking questions about iWeb '09 statements like,

{quote:title=Tom Gewecke wrote:}Absolutely correct. This issue has been addressed thousands of times for years now.{quote}

are not only not true they don't help the discussion.

iWeb '09 was only released this year there can't have been years of discussion about iWeb '09. That is the thread we are in is it not?

Apple.com > Support > Discussions > iWeb > iWeb '09

Don't assume that because someone is using iWeb '09 they have ever used iWeb '08 or any previous iWeb version.

As well, discussions relating to previous iWeb version don't necessarily apply to iWeb '09. A user new to iWeb '09 has no idea whether say an archived post relating to iWeb '08 is still relevant to iWeb '09.

they don't help the discussion.

My apologies, you are right, that was irrelevant and not helpful.