I am getting data from a broken RSS feed that gives me wrong link. I wanted to fix this link so I made this code:
<link.*>(.*)&.*tid(.*)</link>
and the link could be like:
www.somedomain.com/?value=50&burrrdurrrr;tid=120
But the real working link is in this form:
www.somedomain.com/?value=50&tid=120
The thing that I'm asking is if my measure thing looks like this:
[FeedURL]
Measure=Plugin
Plugin=Plugins\WebParser.dll
Url=[Feed]
StringIndex=2 ;now I only get www.somedomain.com/?value=50
Substitute=#SubstituteFeed#
How am I supposed to concatenate the strings together to complete the url?
I'm guessing rather than &burrrdurrrr;, the link has &, which is how you have to write & in an HTML or XML file.
If that's the case, you just need to set the DecodeCharacterReference option, as described in this handy-looking tutorial. Another option mentioned there is Substitute, which would be able to strip it out even if it really was &burrrdurrrr;.
None of this is a particularly sensible way of dealing with HTML or XML - a much better approach would be a plugin which actually parsed the document structure and let you reference nodes using XPath or CSS rules - but you work with what you've got, I guess. (I've never heard of this "Rainmeter" before, despite its claim to be "the best known and most popular desktop customization program for Windows"; maybe because nobody else calls their program that, instead almost universally using the word "widget"?)
I am working on a project using a bash shell script. The idea is to grep a wget retrieved page, in order to pick up a certain paragraph on the web page. The area I would like to copy, usually starts with a
<p><b>
but the paragraph also contains other bits of HTML code, such as anchor tags, that I don't want to be in the output of the grep.
I have tried
cat page.html| grep "<p><b>" >grep.txt
and then I grep the output file, which now contains the paragraph I want
cat grep.txt|grep -v '<p>|<b>|<a>' >grep.txt
but then all it does is clear everything from the file and not read anything. How can I get it to exclude only the HTML code?
I am also trying to follow the links that are in the paragraph that I grep, in order to do the same thing with those pages. Only 2 levels deep, so the main page and then what ever sub page(s) stem from the first paragraph of the main page. I know this is a difficult idea, hopefully I explained well enough to get some help. If you have any ideas, any help is appreciated.
Do you have to do this in bash? It seems to me that Python would lend itself to this problem, in particular a library called Beautiful Soup.
I've used this for parsing HTML in the past and it's the easiest tool I could find. It has good documentation for dealing with html.
Perhaps you could make a standalone python code that extracts the HTML and then echos the string you're after. The python code could then be called from inside your bash script if you have some bash functions you want to perform on the string.
I know this is 7 years old but just posting solution I have with bash
https://api.jquery.com/jquery.grep/
I've recently discovered RapidMiner, and I'm very excited about it's capabilities. However I'm still unsure if the program can help me with my specific needs. I want the program to scrape xpath matches from an URL list I've generated with another program. (it has more options then the 'crawl web' operator in RapidMiner)
I've seen the following tutorials from Neil Mcguigan: http://vancouverdata.blogspot.com/2011/04/web-scraping-rapidminer-xpath-web.html. But the websites I try to scrape have thousands of pages, and I don't want to store them all on my pc. And the web crawler simply lacks critical features so I'm unable to use it for my purposes. Is there a way I can just make it read the URLS, and scrape the xpath's from each of those URLS?
I've also looked at other tools for extracting html from pages, but I've been unable to figure out how they work (or even install) since I'm not a programmer. Rapidminer on the other hand is easy to install, the operator descriptions make sense but I've been unable to connect them in the right order.
I need to have some input to keep the motivation going. I would like to know what operator I could use instead of 'process documents from files.' I've looked at 'process documents from web' but it doesn't have an input, and it still needs to crawl. Any help is much appreciated.
Looking forward to your replies.
Web scraping without saving the html pages internally using RapidMiner is a two step process:
Step 1 Follow the video at http://vancouverdata.blogspot.com/2011/04/rapidminer-web-crawling-rapid-miner-web.html by Neil McGuigan with the following difference:
instead of Crawl Web operator use the Process Documents from Web
operator. There will not be an option to specify the output
directory, because the results will be loaded into the ExampleSet.
ExampleSet will contain links matching the crawling rules.
Step 2 Follow the video at http://vancouverdata.blogspot.com/2011/04/web-scraping-rapidminer-xpath-web.html but only from 7:40 with the following difference:
put the Extract Information subprocess inside the Process Documents from Web which has been created previously.
ExampleSet will contain the links and the attributes matching the XPath queries.
I have quite the same problem than you and maybe these posts from RapidMiner's forum will help you a little :
http://rapid-i.com/rapidforum/index.php/topic,2753.0.html
and
http://rapid-i.com/rapidforum/index.php?topic=3851.0.html
See ya ;)
I'm looking for a solution to replace all the links from a curl response to my site.
Lets say my site is: example.com, then I make a CURL request to site.com.
site.com has various links:
Something!
<some html>......
Google!
<more html>
Something else
My goal is to prefix all the links with: example.com/?url={THE URL OF THE LINK} (AKA my site).
My current solution uses regexp to "catch" and process all the links.
This works most of the time, but from time to time I encounter a non-valid HTML that fails the regex.
The regex has another disadvantage: I can't catch onclick="" actions and different link scenarios.
I heard several solutions such as rewrite and reverse proxy. Any of them can work to achieve my goal?
Thanks..
You should absolutely be able to use regex for that. However, your code will have to be a little more robust to handle inline scripting. Analyze a large sample of anchor attributes to determine all the possible link formats, over and above /href=""/ and /window.location.href/.
You will also have to parse referenced script files to see what the event handlers hold.
I'm using an '&' symbol with HTML5 and UTF-8 in my site's <title>. Google shows the ampersand fine on its SERPs, as do all the browsers in their titles.
http://validator.w3.org is giving me this:
& did not start a character reference. (& probably should have been escaped as &.)
Do I really need to do &?
I'm not fussed about my pages validating for the sake of validating, but I'm curious to hear people's opinions on this and if it's important and why.
Yes. Just as the error said, in HTML, attributes are #PCDATA meaning they're parsed. This means you can use character entities in the attributes. Using & by itself is wrong and if not for lenient browsers and the fact that this is HTML not XHTML, would break the parsing. Just escape it as & and everything would be fine.
HTML5 allows you to leave it unescaped, but only when the data that follows does not look like a valid character reference. However, it's better just to escape all instances of this symbol than worry about which ones should be and which ones don't need to be.
Keep this point in mind; if you're not escaping & to &, it's bad enough for data that you create (where the code could very well be invalid), you might also not be escaping tag delimiters, which is a huge problem for user-submitted data, which could very well lead to HTML and script injection, cookie stealing and other exploits.
Please just escape your code. It will save you a lot of trouble in the future.
Validation aside, the fact remains that encoding certain characters is important to an HTML document so that it can render properly and safely as a web page.
Encoding & as & under all circumstances, for me, is an easier rule to live by, reducing the likelihood of errors and failures.
Compare the following: which is easier? Which is easier to bugger up?
Methodology 1
Write some content which includes ampersand characters.
Encode them all.
Methodology 2
(with a grain of salt, please ;) )
Write some content which includes ampersand characters.
On a case-by-case basis, look at each ampersand. Determine if:
It is isolated, and as such unambiguously an ampersand. eg. volt & amp > In that case don't bother encoding it.
It is not isolated, but you feel it is nonetheless unambiguous, as the resulting entity does not exist and will never exist since the entity list could never evolve. E.g., amp&volt >. In that case, don't bother encoding it.
It is not isolated, and ambiguous. E.g., volt& > Encode it.
??
HTML5 rules are different from HTML4. It's not required in HTML5 - unless the ampersand looks like it starts a parameter name. "©=2" is still a problem, for example, since © is the copyright symbol.
However it seems to me that it's harder work to decide to encode or not to encode depending on the following text. So the easiest path is probably to encode all the time.
I think this has turned into more of a question of "why follow the spec when browser's don't care." Here is my generalized answer:
Standards are not a "present" thing. They are a "future" thing. If we, as developers, follow web standards, then browser vendors are more likely to correctly implement those standards, and we move closer to a completely interoperable web, where CSS hacks, feature detection, and browser detection are not necessary. Where we don't have to figure out why our layouts break in a particular browser, or how to work around that.
Specifically, if HTML5 does not require using & in your specific situation, and you're using an HTML5 doctype (and also expecting your users to be using HTML5-compliant browsers), then there is no reason to do it.
Well, if it comes from user input then absolutely yes, for obvious reasons. Think if this very website didn't do it: the title of this question would show up as Do I really need to encode ‘&’ as ‘&’?
If it's just something like echo '<title>Dolce & Gabbana</title>'; then strictly speaking you don't have to. It would be better, but if you don't, no user will notice the difference.
Could you show us what your title actually is? When I submit
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<title>Dolce & Gabbana</title>
<body>
<p>Am I allowed loose & mpersands?</p>
</body>
</html>
to http://validator.w3.org/ - explicitly asking it to use the experimental HTML 5 mode - it has no complaints about the &s...
In HTML, a & marks the begin of a reference, either of a character reference or of an entity reference. From that point on, the parser expects either a # denoting a character reference, or an entity name denoting an entity reference, both followed by a ;. That’s the normal behavior.
But if the reference name or just the reference opening & is followed by a white space or other delimiters like ", ', <, >, &, the ending ; and even a reference to represent a plain, & can be omitted:
<p title="&">foo & bar</p>
<p title="&">foo & bar</p>
<p title="&">foo & bar</p>
Only in these cases can the ending ; or even the reference itself be omitted (at least in HTML 4). I think HTML 5 requires the ending ;.
But the specification recommends to always use a reference like the character reference & or the entity reference & to avoid confusion:
Authors should use "&" (ASCII decimal 38) instead of "&" to avoid confusion with the beginning of a character reference (entity reference open delimiter). Authors should also use "&" in attribute values since character references are allowed within CDATA attribute values.
Update (March 2020): The W3C validator no longer complains about escaping URLs.
I was checking why image URLs need escaping and hence tried it in https://validator.w3.org. The explanation is pretty nice. It highlights that even URLs need to be escaped. [PS: I guess it will be unescaped when it's consumed since URLs need &. Can anyone clarify?]
<img alt="" src="foo?bar=qut&qux=fop" />
An entity reference was found in the document, but there is no
reference by that name defined. Often this is caused by misspelling
the reference name, unencoded ampersands, or by leaving off the
trailing semicolon (;). The most common cause of this error is
unencoded ampersands in URLs as described by the WDG in "Ampersands in
URLs". Entity references start with an ampersand (&) and end with a
semicolon (;). If you want to use a literal ampersand in your document
you must encode it as "&" (even inside URLs!). Be careful to end
entity references with a semicolon or your entity reference may get
interpreted in connection with the following text. Also keep in mind
that named entity references are case-sensitive; &Aelig; and æ
are different characters. If this error appears in some markup
generated by PHP's session handling code, this article has
explanations and solutions to your problem.
It depends on the likelihood of a semicolon ending up near your &, causing it to display something quite different.
For example, when dealing with input from users (say, if you include the user-provided subject of a forum post in your title tags), you never know where they might be putting random semicolons, and it might randomly display strange entities. So always escape in that situation.
For your own static HTML content, sure, you could skip it, but it's so trivial to include proper escaping, that there's no good reason to avoid it.
If the user passes it to you, or it will wind up in a URL, you need to escape it.
If it appears in static text on a page? All browsers will get this one right either way, and you don't worry much about it, since it will work.
Yes, you should try to serve valid code if possible.
Most browsers will silently correct this error, but there is a problem with relying on the error handling in the browsers. There is no standard for how to handle incorrect code, so it's up to each browser vendor to try to figure out what to do with each error, and the results may vary.
Some examples where browsers are likely to react differently is if you put elements inside a table but outside the table cells, or if you nest links inside each other.
For your specific example it's not likely to cause any problems, but error correction in the browser might for example cause the browser to change from standards compliant mode into quirks mode, which could make your layout break down completely.
So, you should correct errors like this in the code, if not for anything else so to keep the error list in the validator short, so that you can spot more serious problems.
A couple of years ago, we got a report that one of our web apps wasn't displaying correctly in Firefox. It turned out that the page contained a tag that looked like
<div style="..." ... style="...">
When faced with a repeated style attribute, Internet Explorer combines both of the styles, while Firefox only uses one of them, hence the different behavior. I changed the tag to
<div style="...; ..." ...>
and sure enough, it fixed the problem! The moral of the story is that browsers have more consistent handling of valid HTML than of invalid HTML. So, fix your damn markup already! (Or use HTML Tidy to fix it.)
If & is used in HTML then you should escape it.
If & is used in JavaScript strings, e.g., an alert('This & that'); or document.href, you don't need to use it.
If you're using document.write then you should use it, e.g. document.write(<p>this & that</p>).
If you're really talking about the static text
<title>Foo & Bar</title>
stored in some file on the hard disk and served directly by a server, then yes: it probably doesn't need to be escaped.
However, since there is very little HTML content nowadays that's completely static, I'll add the following disclaimer that assumes that the HTML content is generated from some other source (database content, user input, web service call result, legacy API result, ...):
If you don't escape a simple &, then chances are you also don't escape a & or a or <b> or <script src="http://attacker.com/evil.js"> or any other invalid text. That would mean that you are at best displaying your content wrongly and more likely are suspectible to XSS attacks.
In other words: when you're already checking and escaping the other more problematic cases, then there's almost no reason to leave the not-totally-broken-but-still-somewhat-fishy standalone-& unescaped.
The link has a fairly good example of when and why you may need to escape & to &
https://jsfiddle.net/vh2h7usk/1/
Interestingly, I had to escape the character in order to represent it properly in my answer here. If I were to use the built-in code sample option (from the answer panel), I can just type in & and it appears as it should. But if I were to manually use the <code></code> element, then I have to escape in order to represent it correctly :)