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 have to work with some really ugly looking markup and I am running it through Tidy on ruby. For the most part it works great except for the fact that it lumps a ton of hidden inputs that are in the markup on to one line. I know there is a setting for a column wrap but it would be nicer if it just put sibling inputs on separate lines. It is important because it would simplify debugging when looking at the markup and seeing the info quickly in those hidden inputs.
I have yet to find a tool that does this. So is there anything out there or am I being foolish?
I should also add that a lot of the issues stem from the bad markup I get initially and there is nothing I can do to clean it up before it gets to me. I tried Nokogiri-pretty to clean it up and it was so close to being perfect but it turned script tags in to self closing tags which is no good.
Right now I am settling with Tidying the source and then (I know this is terrible) gsub(/<input[^>]*>/, '\0'+"\n"). I love the fact that I had to concat the capture with the newline.
Tidy tends to be problematic in Ruby. It has been reported to leak memory, it isn't 1.9 compatible, etc. However, you may be able to skip Tidy altogether by using Nokogiri and the nokogiri-pretty gem.
Assuming you have a Nokogiri doc:
require 'nokogiri-pretty'
puts doc.human
In addition to other tidying, all <input> tags will be on their own line and properly indented.
Nokogiri can do that easy enough:
doc.css('input').each{|input| input.before "\n"}
I am using Topsy, It returns me title of highest ranking article of my mebsite, It returns me one RSS file which contains post title with there link. For now i am only taking post name and using post title am trying to search in mysql database using following function like this:
get_post_by_title($postTitle,'post');
But the problem is topsy returns me post title but it also add some special characters in RSS file like " ' " replace with " ’ " this charecters.Because of this get_post_by_title() function does not return me post by title name.
EDIT : It returns me one post title like this :
iPad Applications In Bloom’s Taxonomy NEXT
Here single quote is special charecter.
Please help me. Thanks
First let's clear up a misconception: that character in your example is not a "special" character. It is Unicode code point U+2019, "RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK." Its HTML entity reference is ’. It's an ordinary character - it just happens to be an ordinary character that has no representation in ASCII. Before getting to an answer to your specific question, I need to tell you to read Joel Spolsky's article "The Absolute Minimum Every Software Developer Absolutely, Positively Must Know About Unicode and Character Sets (No Excuses!)" - it is just what it says on the tin, and unless you absorb at least a little more knowledge about Unicode, you will keep running into problems like this. Don't fret too much: everyone runs into problems like this until they learn how to deal with text. Unicode isn't "hard" so much as it is "prone to exposing unconscious assumptions we make about how text works." †
Now, to your question.
If I'm reading you right, what's happening to you is that you have posts with non-ASCII characters in their titles such as ’ which aren't showing up when you search for them with get_post_by_title() (it seems like you're using something similar to the accepted answer on this question - is that right?) There are two paths to a solution: store the titles in a format that's easier for you to search, or use a searching method that can find non-ASCII characters.
Storing the titles differently would require that you run them through PHP's built-in htmlentities() function or before storing them in your Wordpress DB - you would also want to make sure that you convert characters with no HTML entity equivalent to '\xNN' form, and to make sure that your DB's collation/charset is set to UTF-8 or another Unicode-aware encoding. This will be a nontrivial amount of effort. ‡
Using a different searching method doesn't require tinkering with your DB or digging into WordPress internals, but it does require very careful fiddling with search string. You'll need to either use the exact character you're looking for in a search, expressed as a '\xNN' character reference if necessary, or use wildcards carefully in the search.
Either way, good luck. It may be possible to offer more specific advice if more of your code is visible.
†: By the way, your life with regards to Unicode will also get much, much easier if you use better languages than PHP and better databases than MySQL. WordPress is inextricably tied to PHP and MySQL: PHP & MySQL are both woefully, horrendous, hilariously bad at handling Unicode issues correctly. Your life as a programmer will get better if you extirpate PHP & MySQL from it.
‡: Seriously, PHP is atrociously bad at this, and MySQL is in a shoelaces-tied-together state of fumbling. Avoid them.
remove from wp-config.php
//define('DB_CHARSET', 'utf8');
//define('DB_COLLATE','utf8_unicode_ci');
You can easily remove special characters using preg_replace, see this post -> http://code-tricks.com/filter-non-ascii-characters-using-php/
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 :)
What are the best algorithms for recognizing structured data on an HTML page?
For example Google will recognize the address of home/company in an email, and offers a map to this address.
A named-entity extraction framework such as GATE has at least tackled the information extraction problem for locations, assisted by a gazetteer of known places to help resolve common issues. Unless the pages were machine generated from a common source, you're going to find regular expressions a bit weak for the job.
If you have the markup proper—and not just the text from the page—I second the Beautiful Soup suggestion above. In particular, the address tag should provide the lowest of low-hanging fruit. Also look into the adr microformat. I'd only falll back to regexes if the first two didn't pull enough info or I didn't have the necessary data to look for the first two.
If you also have to handle international addresses, you're in for a world of headaches; international address formats are amazingly varied.
I'd guess that Google takes a two step approach to the problem (at least that's what I would do). First they use some fairly general search pattern to pick out everything that could be an address, and then they use their map database to look up that string and see if they get any matches. If they do it's probably an address if they don't it probably isn't. If you can use a map database in your code that will probably make your life easier.
Unless you can limit the geographic location of the addresses, I'm guessing that it's pretty much impossible to identify a string as an address just by parsing it, simply due to the huge variation of address formats used around the world.
Do not use regular expressions. Use an existing HTML parser, for example in Python I strongly recommend BeautifulSoup. Even if you use a regular expression to parse the HTML elements BeautifulSoup grabs.
If you do it with your own regexs, you not only have to worry about finding the data you require, you have to worry about things like invalid HTML, and lots of other very non-obvious problems you'll stumble over..
What you're asking is really quite a hard problem if you want to get it perfect. While a simple regexp will get it mostly right most of them time, writing one that will get it exactly right everytime is fiendishly hard. There are plenty of strange corner cases and in several cases there is no single unambiguous answer. Most web sites that I've seen to a pretty bad job handling all but the simplest URLs.
If you want to go down the regexp route your best bet is probably to check out the sourcecode of
http://metacpan.org/pod/Regexp::Common::URI::http
Again, regular expressions should do the trick.
Because of the wide variety of addresses, you can only guess if a string is an address or not by an expression like "(number), (name) Street|Boulevard|Main", etc
You can consider looking into some firefox extensions which aim to map addresses found in text to see how they work
You can check this USA extraction example http://code.google.com/p/graph-expression/wiki/USAAddressExtraction
It depends upon your requirement.
for email and contact details regex is more than enough.
For addresses regex alone will not help. Think about NLP(NER) & POS tagging.
For finding people related information you cant do anything without NER.
If you need information like paragraphs get the contents by using tags.