Say I have a URL such as:
http://ほっけがおいしい.com
If I put this in any browser, I insto-magically get:
http://xn--n8jaqhy3b1euj.com/
What is the algorithm to transcode the Unicode characters into mere latin ones? This seems like it should be easily Google-able but I really can't seem to find anything.
I want to reverse it -- given the latter, I want to get the former.
The use case is that I want to pass some information on the iPhone between apps using URL handlers, but I can't guarantee that the content will be Latin characters.
I'm not sure if this covers it all, I've not read through all the RFCs but it might be a good place to start: RFCs Related to IDN
Related
So I don't really want this question to be language specific, however I suspect Go (my language choice) is playing a part here.
I'm trying to find a string within the body of a raw email. To do so, I am getting the encoding, and the marjority of cases are quoted-printable.
Ok so thats fine, I am encoding my search query quoted printable and then doing a search for it. That works.
However. In one specific case the raw email I see in gmail looks fine, however when I retrieve the raw email from the gmail API the although the encoding and everything is identical, its encoding the " as =22
Research shows me thats because the charset is utf-8.
I haven't quite got my head around whether thats encoded utf-8 then quoted-printable or the other way around, but thats not quite the question either....
If I look at the email where the " is =22 I see the char set is utf-8 and when I look at another where its not encoded, the charset is UTF-8 (notice the case). I can't believe that the case here is whats causing this to happen, but it doesn't seem a robust enough way to work out if =22 is actually =22 or is a " encoded utf-8.
My original thought was to always decode the quoted-printable and then re-encode it before doing the search but I don't think this is going to be a robust approach going forward and thought others might have a better suggestion?
Conclusion, I'm trying to find a string in a raw email but the encoding is causing me problems getting my search string to match the encoding of the body
The =22-type encoding actually has nothing to do with the charset (whether that is utf-8 lowercase or UTF-8 uppercase or any other charset).
It is the Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable encoding.
The quoted-printable encoding is just a way of hex-encoding octets, typically limited to octets that fall outside of the printable ascii range. It seems odd that the DQUOTE character would be encoded in this way, but it's perfectly legal to do so.
If you want to search for strings in the body of the message, you'll need to first decode the body of the message. Otherwise you will not be successful.
I would recommend reading rfc2045 at a minimum.
You may also need to end up reading rfc2047 if you end up wanting to search headers at some point, but that gets... tricky due to various bugs that sending clients have.
Now that I've been "triggered" into a rant about MIME, let me explain why decoding headers is so hard to get right. I'm sure just about every developer who has ever worked on an email client could tell you this, but I guess I'm going to be the one to do it.
Here's just a short list of the problems every developer faces when they go to implement a decoder for headers which have been (theoretically) encoded according to the rfc2047 specification:
First off, there are technically two variations of header encoding formats specified by rfc2047 - one for phrases and one for unstructured text fields. They are very similar but you can't use the same rules for tokenizing them. I mention this because it seems that most MIME parsers miss this very subtle distinction and so, as you might imagine, do most MIME generators. Hell, most MIME generators probably never even heard of specifications to begin with it seems.
This brings us to:
There are so many variations of how MIME headers fail to be tokenizable according to the rules of rfc2822 and rfc2047. You'll encounter fun stuff such as:
a. encoded-word tokens illegally being embedded in other word tokens
b. encoded-word tokens containing illegal characters in them (such as spaces, line breaks, and more) effectively making it so that a tokenizer can no longer, well, tokenize them (at least not easily)
c. multi-byte character sequences being split between multiple encoded-word tokens which means that it's not possible to decode said encoded-word tokens individually
d. the payloads of encoded-word tokens being split up into multiple encoded-word tokens, often splitting in a location which makes it impossible to decode the payload in isolation
You can see some examples here.
Something that many developers seem to miss is the fact that each encoded-word token is allowed to be in different character encodings (you might have one token in UTF-8, another in ISO-8859-1 and yet another in koi8-r). Normally, this would be no big deal because you'd just decode each payload, then convert from the specified charset into UTF-8 via iconv() or something. However, due to the fun brokenness that I mentioned above in (2c) and (2d), this becomes more complicated.
If that isn't enough to make you want to throw your hands up in the air and mutter some profanities, there's more...
Undeclared 8bit text in headers. Yep. Some mailers just didn't get the memo that they are supposed to encode non-ASCII text. So now you get to have the fun experience of mixing and matching undeclared 8bit text of God-only-knows what charset along with the content of (probably broken) encoded-words.
If you want to see how to deal with these issues, you can take a look at how I did it using C in my GMime library, here: https://github.com/jstedfast/gmime/blob/master/gmime/gmime-utils.c#L1894 (in case line offsets change in the future, look for _g_mime_utils_header_decode_text() and the various internal methods it uses in that source file - I have written comments explaining how it deals with the above issues).
Or you can see how I did it using C# in my MimeKit library, here: https://github.com/jstedfast/MimeKit/blob/master/MimeKit/Utils/Rfc2047.cs
For more infomation about why & how dealing with email is hard, check out Joshua Cramner's blog series: http://quetzalcoatal.blogspot.com/search/label/email-hard
I'm adding a feature to my project where we are generating links to internal stuff of our website, and we want these links to be as short as possible, so we'll be making our own "URL Shortener".
I'm wondering what's the best encoding / alphabet to use for the generated short URLs.
This is largely a subjective question, I'd like to know what your opinions are regarding the best approach / trade-off.
Several options I've thought of:
- Digits, uppercase + lowercase (base 62)
- Digits, only lowercase (base 36)
- Base 32 (http://www.crockford.com/wrmg/base32.html)
- linkpot.net (using common short english words)
Of course, the second two are better for uses other than clicking, and the first two are better for Twitter.
Also, if I'm going with "clickable-only" URLs, I'd like to make the alphabet as large as possible, adding other symbols.
What symbols can I use in URLs that won't get URL encoded?
What symbols should I use? Could some of these prove problematic? I'm thinking slash and dot, for example.
What do you think?
NOTE: The main target for these URLs is Twitter. Keeping this in mind, we should probably have the largest alphabet possible, since most people will be clicking. However, I'm interested in your experience with people using short URLs in other ways (over the phone, in printed paper, etc). How likely is it this could happen?
NOTE 2: I'm not making "yet another URL shortener", please don't condemn me with downvotes. We are generating short URLs for internal stuff in our site, not allowing anyone to shorten any URL. Imagine Google Maps giving you short URLs when you generate a link to a specific coordinate.
I would go with Base-62, it's the shortest. Shortened URL is not meant for someone to manually enter anyway so don't worry about case-sensitivity.
If these are "clickable only URLS" I'd probably go with a base-64 encoding. MIME's base-64 uses a couple of characters you shouldn't use, but there are enough unreserved safe characters in URLs that you can just swap them out. (Also, you don't need the padding that MIME's base-64 uses, since you know when your URL ends.)
Here's a page that discusses one way to do this.
You can look at RFC2396 to figure out exactly what characters are safe in URIs if you want to double check.
I'd be curious to know a little more about the implementation. How will these URLs be "unshortened", or will the internal pages being accessed be saved as shortened URLs? In either case, even if you went with the encoding set of [A-Z] you'd be able to reference 26 * 26 * 26 = 17,576 pages with only 3 characters; how many internal web pages are you talking about?
In general I would lean on what your use case requirements are for picking the right encoding set. Are you planning on having these links available for "uses other than clicking"? What would those uses be, and how do you suspect they'll alter the encoding? (For example, using parts of the URL as a file name on a case-insensitive file system reduces the available character set.)
Here's an informative page on the character set you have available to you when writing a URL.
I need a way to detect whether a file contains characters from a certain charset.
Specifically, I want to detect the presence of UTF8-encoded cyrillic characters in a series of files. Is there a tool to do this?
Thanks
If you are looking for ready solution, you might want to try Enca.
However, if you only want to detect presence of what can be possibly decoded as UTF-8 Cyrillic characters (without any complete UTF-8 validity checks), you just have to grep for something like /(\xD0[\x81\x90-\xBF]|\xD1[\x80-\x8F\x91]){n,}/ (this exact regexp is for n subsequent UTF8-encoded Russian Cyrillic characters). For additional check that the whole file contains only valid UTF-8 data you can use something like isutf8(1).
Both methods have their good and bad sides and may sometimes give wrong results.
IIRC the ICU library has code that does character set detection. Though it's basically a best effort guess.
Edit: I did remember correctly, check out this paper / tutorial
I know of the non-standard %uxxxx scheme but that doesn't seem like a wise choice since the scheme has been rejected by the W3C.
Some interesting examples:
The heart character.
If I type this into my browser:
http://www.google.com/search?q=♥
Then copy and paste it, I see this URL
http://www.google.com/search?q=%E2%99%A5
which makes it seem like Firefox (or Safari) is doing this.
urllib.quote_plus(x.encode("latin-1"))
'%E2%99%A5'
which makes sense, except for things that can't be encoded in Latin-1, like the triple dot character.
…
If I type the URL
http://www.google.com/search?q=…
into my browser then copy and paste, I get
http://www.google.com/search?q=%E2%80%A6
back. Which seems to be the result of doing
urllib.quote_plus(x.encode("utf-8"))
which makes sense since … can't be encoded with Latin-1.
But then its not clear to me how the browser knows whether to decode with UTF-8 or Latin-1.
Since this seems to be ambiguous:
In [67]: u"…".encode('utf-8').decode('latin-1')
Out[67]: u'\xc3\xa2\xc2\x80\xc2\xa6'
works, so I don't know how the browser figures out whether to decode that with UTF-8 or Latin-1.
What's the right thing to be doing with the special characters I need to deal with?
I would always encode in UTF-8. From the Wikipedia page on percent encoding:
The generic URI syntax mandates that new URI schemes that provide for the representation of character data in a URI must, in effect, represent characters from the unreserved set without translation, and should convert all other characters to bytes according to UTF-8, and then percent-encode those values. This requirement was introduced in January 2005 with the publication of RFC 3986. URI schemes introduced before this date are not affected.
It seems like because there were other accepted ways of doing URL encoding in the past, browsers attempt several methods of decoding a URI, but if you're the one doing the encoding you should use UTF-8.
The general rule seems to be that browsers encode form responses according to the content-type of the page the form was served from. This is a guess that if the server sends us "text/xml; charset=iso-8859-1", then they expect responses back in the same format.
If you're just entering a URL in the URL bar, then the browser doesn't have a base page to work on and therefore just has to guess. So in this case it seems to be doing utf-8 all the time (since both your inputs produced three-octet form values).
The sad truth is that AFAIK there's no standard for what character set the values in a query string, or indeed any characters in the URL, should be interpreted as. At least in the case of values in the query string, there's no reason to suppose that they necessarily do correspond to characters.
It's a known problem that you have to tell your server framework which character set you expect the query string to be encoded as--- for instance, in Tomcat, you have to call request.setEncoding() (or some similar method) before you call any of the request.getParameter() methods. The dearth of documentation on this subject probably reflects the lack of awareness of the problem amongst many developers. (I regularly ask Java interviewees what the difference between a Reader and an InputStream is, and regularly get blank looks)
IRI (RFC 3987) is the latest standard that replaces the URI/URL (RFC 3986 and older) standards. URI/URL do not natively support Unicode (well, RFC 3986 adds provisions for future URI/URL-based protocols to support it, but does not update past RFCs). The "%uXXXX" scheme is a non-standard extension to allow Unicode in some situations, but is not universally implemented by everyone. IRI, on the other hand, fully supports Unicode, and requires that text be encoded as UTF-8 before then being percent-encoded.
IRIs do not replace URIs, because only URIs (effectively, ASCII) are permissible in some contexts -- including HTTP.
Instead, you specify an IRI and it gets transformed into a URI when going out on the wire.
The first question is what are your needs? UTF-8 encoding is a pretty good compromise between taking text created with a cheap editor and support for a wide variety of languages. In regards to the browser identifying the encoding, the response (from the web server) should tell the browser the encoding. Still most browsers will attempt to guess, because this is either missing or wrong in so many cases. They guess by reading some amount of the result stream to see if there is a character that does not fit in the default encoding. Currently all browser(? I did not check this, but it is pretty close to true) use utf-8 as the default.
So use utf-8 unless you have a compelling reason to use one of the many other encoding schemes.
When one creates web content in languages different than English the problem of search engine optimized and user friendly URLs emerge.
I'm wondering whether it is the best practice to use de-accented letters in URLs -- risking that some words have completely different meanings with and without certain accents -- or it is better to stick to the usage of non-english characters where appropriate sacrificing the readability of those URLs in less advanced environments (e.g. MSIE, view source).
"Exotic" letters could appear anywhere: in titles of documents, in tags, in user names, etc, so they're not always under the complete supervision of the maintainer of the website.
A possible approach of course would be setting up alternate -- unaccented -- URLs as well which would point to the original destination, but I would like to learn your opinions about using accented URLs as primary document identifiers.
There's no ambiguity here: RFC3986 says no, that is, URIs cannot contain unicode characters, only ASCII.
An entirely different matter is how browsers represent encoded characters when displaying a URI, for example some browsers will display a space in a URL instead of '%20'. This is how IDN works too: punycoded strings are encoded and decoded by browsers on the fly, so if you visit café.com, you're really visiting xn--caf-dma.com. What appears to be unicode chars in URLs is really only 'visual sugar' on the part of the browser: if you use a browser that doesn't support IDN or unicode, the encoded version won't work because the underlying definition of URLs simply doesn't support it, so for it to work consistently, you need to % encode.
When faced with a similar problem, I took advantage of URL rewriting to allow such pages to be accessible by either the accented or unaccented character. The actual URL would be something like
http://www.mysite.com/myresume.html
And a rewriting+character translating function allows this reference
http://www.mysite.com/myresumé.html
to load the same resource. So to answer your question, as the primary resource identifier, I confine myself to 0-9, A-Z, a-z and the occasional hyphen.
Considering URLs with accents often tend to end up looking like this :
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89l%C3%A9phant
...which is not that nice... I think we'll still be using de-accented URLs for some time.
Though, things should get better, as accented URLs are now accepted by web browsers, it seems.
The firefox 3.5 I'm currently using displays the URL the nice way, and not with %stuff, btw ; this seems to be "new" since firefox 3.0 (see Firefox 3: UTF-8 support in location bar) ; so, not probably not supported in IE 6, at least -- and there are still quite too many people using this one :-(
Maybe URL with no accent are not looking the best that could be ; but, still, people are used to them, and seem to generally understand them quite well.
You should avoid non-ASCII characters in URLs that may be entered in browser manually by users. It's ok for embedded links pre-encoded by server.
We found out that browser can encode the URL in different ways and it's very hard to figure out what encoding it uses. See my question on this issue,
Handling Character Encoding in URI on Tomcat
There are several areas in a full URL, and each one might has different rules.
The protocol is plain ASCII.
The DNS entry is governed by IDN (International Domain Names) rules, and can contain (most) of the Unicode characters.
The path (after the first /), the user name and the password can again be everything. They are escaped (as %XX), but those are just bytes. What is the encoding of these bytes is difficult to know (is interpreted by the http server).
The parameters part (after the first ?) is passed "as is" (after %XX unescapeing) to some server-side application thing (php, asp, jsp, cgi), and how that interprets the bytes is another story).
It is recommended that the path/user/password/arguments are utf-8, but not mandatory, and not everyone respects that.
So you should definitely allow for non-ASCII (we are not in the 80s anymore), but exactly what you do with that might be tricky. Try to use Unicode and stay away from legacy code pages, tag your content with the proper encoding/charset if you can (using meta in html, language directives for asp/jsp, etc.)