For educational purposes I try to generate a Blog-website via ox-hugo with a two column layout. On the left the philosophical text, on the right annotations.
It is crucial that these textblocks are aligned.
xxxxTEXTxxxxx yANNOTATIONSy
xxxxxxxxxxxxx yyyyyyyy
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxx yyyyyyyyy
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxx yyyyyyyyyyyyy
xxxxxxxxxxxxx yyyyyyyyyyyyy
xxxxxxxxxxxxx yyyyyyyyyyyyy
yyyyyyyyyyy
xxxxxxxxxxxxx yyyyyyyy
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
I think this might work quite well with [[fn:]] Footnotes, therefore I guess the right template for HUGO would suffice for this?
Another possibility might be the »COLUMNS« Environment in Org-mode, but I doubt that alignment could be achieved easily.
I try to investigate further, I will report back,- I thought this might be useful for others aswell.
Related
After I started sending emails with Amazon SES, the "status" messages that my system sends don't look as nice as before.
Since then, the body of the email is crammed together on one line. Previously, the text was separated into nice little paragraphs for easy reading.
Example:
Hello, you have a status message from the zzz server today:
The server is not down.
Action required: Get a coffee
And now:
Hello, you have a status message from the zzz server today:The server is not down.Action required: Get a coffee
My system generates plain text for the body, using Visual Studio's Environment.Newline method to specify a new paragraph. (I believe this is equivalent to vbcrlf) Previously, using good old SMTPClient, that was generating email bodies the way I wanted.
How have I tried to get a solution?
One solution I have thought of would be to carefully encode each of these "status" messages in pure HTML. If necessary, I guess I will do that work, but it would involve a large amount of coding to ensure that all email bodies were pure html. I would rather find a simpler solution.
I see information on MimeKit.Text.Converter, and I am willing to invest time into using that, but this converter refers only to converting Flowed text, and I have had trouble discovering what that means.
If anyone can show me a simple way to convert a plain text email body into a basic html body, it would really make my day!
First off thanks for reading!
Second off YES I have tried to find the answer! :) Perhaps I haven't found it because I'm not using the right words to describe my problem, but it's been about 4 hours that I've been trying to figure it out now and I'm getting a little loopy trying to piece it together on my own.
I am very new to programming. Python is my first language. I am on my third Python course. I have an assignment to use the socket library (not urllib library - I know how to do that) to make a socket and use GET to receive information. The problem is that the program needs to take raw input for the URL in question.
I have everything else the way I want it, but I need to know the syntax that I'm supposed to be using INSIDE my "GET" request in order for the HTTP message to include the requested document path.
I have tried (obviously not all together lol):
mysock.send('GET (url) HTTP/1.0\n\n')
mysock.send( ('GET (url) HTTP:/1.0\n\n'))
mysock.send(('GET (url) HTTP:/1.0\n\n'))
mysock.send("GET (url) HTTP/1.0\n\n")
mysock.send( ("'GET' (url) HTTP:/1.0\n\n"))
mysock.send(("'GET' (url) 'HTTP:/1.0\n\n'"))
and:
basically every other configuration of the above (, ((, ( (, ', '' combinations listed above.
I have also tried:
-Creating a string using the 'url' variable first, and then including it inside mysock.send(string)
-Again with the "string-first" theory, but this time I used %r to refer to my user input (so 'GET %r HTTP/1.0\n\n' % url basically)
I've read questions here, other programming websites, the whole chapter in the book and the whole lectures/notes online, I've read articles on the socket library and the .send(), and of course articles on GET requests... but I'm clearly missing something. It seems most don't use socket library when they can use urllib and I don't blame them!!
Thank you again...
Someone from the university posted back to me that the url variable can concatenated with the GET syntax and assigned to a string variable which can then be called with .send(concatenatedvariable) - I had mentioned trying that but had missed that GET requires a space after the word 'GET' so of course concatenating didn't include a space and that blew it. In case anyone else wants to know :)
FYI: A fully quallified URL is only allowed in HTTP/1.1 requests. It is not the norm, though, as HTTP/1.1 requires setting the Host header. The relevant piece of reading would've been RFC 7230, sec. 3.1.1 and possibly RFC 3986. The syntax of the parameters is largely borrowed from the CGI format. It is in no way enforced, however. In a nutshell, everything put together would look like this on the wire:
GET /path?param1=value1¶m2=value2 HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
As a final note: The line delimiter in HTTP is CRLF (\r\n). For robustness, a simple linefeed is acceptable as well but not recommended.
I know this is something that has been discussed over and over, and I have done extensive research to get where I am so far, but can't seem to get over the final hurdle.
I am designing a custom REST api for our application, and have decided that I would like to version using media types e.g. application/vnd.mycompany.resource.v2+xml. I realise the pro's and con's of this model and it seems to weigh up the most flexible.
Hence my GET would look as follows:
=== REQUEST ===>
GET /workspaces/123/contacts?firstName=Neil&accessID=789264×tamp=1317611 HTTP/1.1
Accept: application/vnd.mycompany.contact-v2+xml
<== RESPONSE ===
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/vnd.mycompany.contact-v2+xml
<contact>
<name>Neil Armstrong</name>
<mobile>+61456838435</mobile>
<email>neil.armstrong#space.com</email>
</contact>
The problem is that I would like to use Atom feeds and entrys to represent my resource collections. This way I can harness the searching and pagination of Atom without this infected my resources or API structure.
If I use Atom for my requests, my request structure now looks like:
=== REQUEST ===>
GET /workspaces/123/contacts HTTP/1.1
Accept: application/atom+xml; type=feed;
<== RESPONSE ===
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/atom+xml; type=feed;
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<title>Contacts Feed</title>
<link rel="self" href="https://api.mycompany.com/workspaces/contacts"/>
<updated>2011-11-13T18:30:02Z</updated>
...
<entry>
<title>Neil Armstrong</title>
...
<content type="application/vnd.mycompany.contact-v2+xml">
<contact>
<name>Neil Armstrong</name>
<mobile>+61456838435</mobile>
<email>neil.armstrong#space.com</email>
</contact>
</content>
</entry>
</feed>
Using Atom to represent my collections of resources, I lose the ability to version using media types. As the media type is now hidden within the content of the Atom entry.
<content type="application/vnd.mycompany.contact-v2+xml">
What is the best practice for determining the media type version of my resource, while still utilising the power of Atom for Resource collection management?
My thinking is that I could pass it through the ACCEPT header e.g.
Accept: application/atom+xml; type=feed; version=1.0
But then this is confusing as you are asking for version 1.0 of the Atom feed, not the resource itself...
Any help would be really appreciated!!
The problem is that IMHO you're misusing the media types.
Media types give you information on the STRUCTURE of the actual payload, but not the SEMANTICS of the payload. "I know this is an XHTML page, but I don't know if it's a blog post or a item on Amazon." By being an XHTML page, you know how to get the component parts out of the payload and ask interesting questions, but interpretation of the payload is not part of the media type.
Consider an example, paraphrased from an example of Roy Fielding, sending a 10,000 bit array as a GIF file that's 100x100 pixels. GIF, as "everyone knows" is used for sending pictures, but it's really simpler than that. It's a mechanism for sending structured binary that just-happen to most-of-the-time be images. So, in this case of using it to send a 10,000 bit array (perhaps represented as a gray scale image of 00 and FF), you get the benefit of a common decoder (GIF), GIFs built in compression, etc.
But, in this case, it's not a picture. You can show it as a picture, but it's a meaningless picture. The classic semantic of it being used for the picture scenario is not relevant in this case. The benefit is the ubiquity of the the format.
Another example was years ago an engineer was doing radar studies. So, he would take the 3-view drawings of aircraft you would find in books and such, and he would encode them using a tablet in to AutoCAD drawings. The DWG format was well documented, and he had code to read them. What he wanted was the coordinates and measurements from the specific aircraft.
So, in the end he had a bunch of "meaningless" AutoCAD files with nothing but a bunch of lines in it that "made no sense". But in fact they were chock full of good information for his domain. The DWG file was the media-type, but these weren't "CAD drawings". (Can you say "spontaneous reuse"?)
It's fine to version something via media-type, but that's only relevant if the media-type is in fact changing. ATOM, as you noted, isn't changing, or at least it's not changing under your control, and you may choose not to support the new version if/when it does change. But ATOM is not changing because how it represents its information, how that information is encoded, is not changing. The information may well change, in fact it changes all the time. Every ATOM feed is different with different information. MOST have similar semantics (blog feeds), but many do not (for example, perhaps your scenario).
But how you will parse and get information out of the ATOM feed will not change. And that's what the media type represents. An encoding of information, not the information itself.
So, if you want to detect versioning, then check within your payload. Inspect it. You KNOW that for V1 of your data where, for example, the invoice number is (perhaps it's at invoice/inv_no in XPATH). If the invoice is NOT there, then what do you do? You a) look some other well known place (i.e. V2), or, b) you throw an error ("Whatever this is, it's not an invoice!"). You would have to do that no matter what, because you could be getting anything, regardless of what the version says, or the media type says, or what anything else says.
You can make your payloads forward compatible to be resistant to breaking change, then version is a matter of making use of all the information you can see. If you get A and B, then while you'd like to have C and D as well, the clients can get by with the more limited information. Of if the clients see C and D, they would know to ignore A and B, as that data is deprecated. Same with the server. If something is sending A and B, it's implied to be an older processing model than if they sent along C and D.
You can version through rel names "order" vs "order_2", old clients only know to use "order", new clients know to use "order_2" and follow that link instead.
Or you simply include a version identifier in the payload, that's an easy check as well (especially since it's early in your design).
There are a lot of ways to manage the versioning, but the media type really shouldn't be the mechanism. That's why this really isn't a "problem" with ATOM. So, it's a matter of perspective.
I have another discussion about the Accept header over here: REST API having same object, but light
This (IMHO) unrelated to your versioning issue, but it's an example of extended media-types. But that's only my perception of why and how most folks want "versioning". A case could be made this case is the same thing, but most folks associate versioning with services, not simply data representations, which this other post was mostly about.
In the end, either your client and/or server are flexible enough to handle versioned data or they're not. They will (mostly, they are computers after all. Deterministic my heinie...) do what they're told. A simple rule of "ignore stuff that you don't know" can take you quite far in terms of versioning without ever changing a v1 to a v2, regardless of your encoding. Likewise "work with what you have" is a nice rule for a flexible, tolerant server. If you have problems in either case, that's what errors, logs, operators, and 24hr pagers are for, and you need those anyway.
I am working on a more complete email validator in java and came across an interesting ability to embed comments within an email both in the "username" and "address" portions.
The following snippet from http://www.dominicsayers.com/isemail/ has this to say about comments within an email.
Comments are text surrounded by parentheses (like these). These are OK but don't form part of the address. In other words mail sent to first.last#example.com will go to the same place as first(a).last(b)#example(c).com(d). Strange but true.
Do emails like this really exist ?
Is it possible to form hosts like this ?
I tried entering an url such as "google(ignore).com" but firefox and some other browsers failed and i was wondering is this because its it wrong or is it because they dont know about host name comments ?
That syntax -- comments within an addr-spec -- was indeed permissible by the original email RFC, RFC 822. However, the placement of comments like you'd like to use them was deprecated when that RFC was revised by RFC 2822... 10 years ago. It's still marked as obsolete in the current version, RFC 5322. There's no good excuse for emitting anything using that syntax.
Address parsers are supposed to be backwards-compatible in order to cover all conceivable cases, including 10-years-deprecated bits like the one you're trying to take advantage of here. But I'll bet that many, many receiving mail agents will fail to properly parse out those comments. So even though you may have technically found a loophole via the "obsolete addressing" section of the RFC, it's not likely to do you much good in practice.
As for HTTP, the syntax rules aren't the same as email syntax rules. As you're seeing, the comment section from RFC 822 isn't applicable.
Just because you can do it in the spec, doesn't mean that you should. For example, Gmail will not accept that comment format for address.
Second, (to your last point), paren-comments being allowed in email addresses doesn't mean that they work for URLs.
Finally, my advice: I'd tailor the completeness of your validator to your requirements. If you're writing a new MTA (mail transfer agent), you'll probably have to do it all. If you're writing a validator for a user input, keep it simple:
look for one #,
make sure you have stuff before (username) and after (domain name),
make sure you have a "dot" in the hostname string,
[extra credit] do a DNS lookup of the hostname to make sure it resolves.
I was wondering if anyone knew how the thread-index field in email headers work?
Here's a simple chain of emails thread indexes that I messaged myself with.
Email 1 Thread-Index: AcqvbpKt7QRrdlwaRBKmERImIT9IDg==
Email 2 Thread-Index: AcqvbpjOf+21hsPgR4qZeVu9O988Eg==
Email 3 Thread-Index: Acqvbp3C811djHLbQ9eTGDmyBL925w==
Email 4 Thread-Index: AcqvbqMuifoc5OztR7ei1BLNqFSVvw==
Email 5 Thread-Index: AcqvbqfdWWuz4UwLS7arQJX7/XeUvg==
I can't seem to say with certainty how I can link these emails together. Normally, I would use the in-reply-to field or references field, but I recently found that Blackberrys do NOT include these fields. The only include Thread-Index field.
They are base64 encoded Conversation Index values. No need to reverse engineer them as they are documented by Microsoft on e.g. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms528174(v=exchg.10).aspx and more detailed on http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee202481(v=exchg.80).aspx
Seemingly the indexes in your example doesn't represent the same conversation, which probably means that the software that sent the mails wasn't able to link them together.
EDIT: Unfortunately I don't have enough reputation to add a comment, but adamo is right that it contains a timestamp - a somewhat esoteric encoded partial FILETIME. But it also contains a GUID, so it is pretty much guarenteed to be unique for that mail (of course the same mail can exist in multiple copies).
There's a good analysis of how exactly this non-standard "Thread-Index" header appears to be used, in this post and links therefrom, including this pdf (a paper presented at the CEAS 2006 conference) and this follow-up, which includes a comment on the issue from the evolution source code (which seems to reflect substantial reverse-engineering of this undocumented header).
Executive summary: essentially, the author eventually gives up on using this header and recommends and shows a different approach, which is also implemented in the c-client library, part of the UW IMAP Toolkit open source package (which is not for IMAP only -- don't let the name fool you, it also works for POP, NNTP, local mailboxes, &c).
I wouldn't be surprised if there are mail clients out there which would not be able to link Blackberry's mails to their threads. The Thread-Index header appears to be a Microsoft extension.
Either way, Novell Evolution implements this. Take a look at this short description of how they do it, or this piece of code that finds the thread parent of a given message.
I assume that, because the lengths of the Thread-Index headers in your example are all the same, these messages were all thread starts? Strange that they're only 22-bytes, though I suppose you could try applying the 5-bytes-per-message rule to them and see if it works for you.
If you are interested in parsing the Thread-Index in C# please take a look at this post
http://forum.rebex.net/questions/3841/how-to-interprete-thread-index-header
The snippet you will find there will let you parse the Thread-Index and retrieve the Thread GUID and message DateTime. There is a problem however, it does not work for all Thread-Indexes out there. Question is why do some Thread-Indexes generate invalid DateTime and what to do to support all of them???