By FlemmingLeer on

If you look at the source code it seems that the Obama administration also is using Drupal for the data.gov website.

There are a nice menu entry and also a xml sitemap entry on the site.

But I'm not certain :/

Comments

michelle’s picture

michelle
she/her
Primary language English
Location Wisconsin, USA
commented

If it is, it's well disguised. /user and /node both 404, there's no trace of Drupal in the source, and the contact form doesn't look like Drupal's.

Michelle

FlemmingLeer’s picture

FlemmingLeer commented

Hi Michelle,

Yes, exactly. That's why I'm uncertain :/

There's also something in the code that could be dreamweaver codes but especially the nice menu entry indicates some form of drupal code.

There's also some thickbox entries but I don't know the scope of use of that module. A google search on thickbox showed numerous non Drupal related uses.

But then again the robots.txt for data.gov is this:

User-agent: * 
Disallow: /404.php
Disallow: /images/
Disallow: /css/
Disallow: /includes/
Sitemap: http://www.data.gov/sitemap.xml

/includes/ is a standard drupal directory.

Maybe it's a custom made system built on Drupal to meet certain government data security & data integration specification ?

Mark B’s picture

Mark B commented

/includes may be a standard Drupal directory, but /images and /css are not. Most web sites have an /includes directory for stuff to be included.

More tellingly, CHANGELOG.txt and LICENSE.txt also 404. Looking in the page source, jquery.js is included from /js, whereas Drupal keeps it in /misc

It's always interesting looking at how other websites (especially sites which have to handle lots of traffic, or do something particularly interesting) might have been built!

FlemmingLeer’s picture

FlemmingLeer commented

Well,
Mark I don't include changelog.txt and lincense.txt when I upload Drupal to my sites.

But they're still Drupal powered ;)

ColdSun’s picture

ColdSun commented

Its highly unlikely that it is drupal powered. In fact ther is nothing that would make one think its drupal powered.
The includes folder is far from a drupal exclusive. Most developers tend to put functions and other include files in a folder dedicated to them, often called includes.

As mentioned, node and other common drupal traits are not present (granted they could just be blocked... except theres nothing drupal-ish on the site).

Thickbox has nothing to do with drupal outside of it being ported as a module.

The site doesn't "Expire: Sun, 19 Nov 1978 05:00:00 GMT" like drupal sites. Granted, they could of changed the bootstrap inc file, but why?

The js files are located elsewhere, etc.

It would seem that you're assuming the familiarities between the two as Drupal characteristics, when infact its Drupal being made to fit a wider-audience.