I'd like to use justified text for my Jekyll-based website, but there are currently some unpleasant gaps in text at various widths. By inserting the soft hyphen character, , into my Markdown, I managed to make it look much better.
However, it is an unpleasant process, and it defeats most of the point of using Markdown. Software packages such as Microsoft Word are capable of inserting hyphens at logical points, presumably based on a dictionary of acceptable break points.
Where can I get a dictionary of that sort?
How can I make Jekyll automatically perform this process when processing Markdown text?
I only care about supporting English at this point.
However, it is an unpleasant process, and it defeats most of the point
of using Markdown.
This does not have anything to do with Markdown. This is an HTML issue.
HTML does not hyphenate, unless you use CSS hyphenation. This has poor browser support and is language dependent (use hyphenate-resources for this).
I would accept the spotty browser support of this CSS feature (accept its graceful degredation/progressive enhancement). If that is unacceptable for you, you can use a javascript library, like hyphenator.js, to insert the characters into your content.
Related
Situation
with Thai text on a client site is that we can't control where exactly particular words/sentences are going to break between the lines (how web browser will handle it). Often, content appearance is indicated as incorrect by local reviewers.
Workaround
to this is that copywriter needs to deliver Thai content with breaking and non-breaking zero-width-space chars included.
In practice, rather than:
ของเพื่อนๆ ที่ออนไลน์อยู่
we should use something as ugly as:
ของเพื่อนๆที่ออนไลน์อยู่
The above is just an example, I don't really know where exactly the breakpoints are allowed.
In fact, non-breaking zero spaces alone would do the trick either ... it's just more strict and correct to use breaking ones as well for better accuracy.
And while it definitely is doable like this, it also is a time consuming and not very effective solution for a large site content management. Simply said, the effort put into it doesn't match the effect needed.
Research
so far has lead to the workaround mentioned, looking for a better way how to handle this. Even W3C doesn't have a solution yet and is just discussing whether it should be part of CSS3 specification.
Thai language utilizes spaces very rarely, mostly to distinguish between sentences etc. Therefore, common appearance of a Thai sentence is one looong string.
Where to break such a string when more lines of text are put together is determined by particular words identification. For words identification local dictionaries are used which are most probably part of operating system or web browser, I'm not entirely sure about these.
Apparently, the more web browsers / operating systems you check on the more results you get! Moreover, there's not much you can do about this as it's system driven and there are no "where to break Thai" settings available.
Using <wbr/>, or to indicate where the breakpoints really are won't prevent web browser thinking (even though wrong) that some breaks are also possible in places, where you haven't defined them e.g. in the middle of a word which might be grammatically incorrect.
If such a word is placed at the end of a line (depends on screen resolution, copy length, CSS rules defined) and the browser applies his wrong line breaking rule on it then you would end up with a Thai line breaking issue, no matter that you have defined another breakpoints before, after or somewhere else in the word - browser will always use a breakpoint that he thinks is closest to EOL, not just the ones you have gently suggested by inserting one of the mentioned chars in your markup.
That's why you actually need to focus on where not to break your text (non-breaking zero-width-space), not where it's allowed. And that's what lead us back to the ugly and long markup example in the "Workaround" section above. That way a line break can strictly only occur where you have allowed it to be, but it's messy.
Any other solution
how to handle this more effectively would be appreciated ... and who knows, it might even help W3C in their implementation?
THANK YOU!
I know this thread was quite some time but I have something to say as a native Thai. I read lots of Thai web pages everyday and I feel the quality of Thai line breaking by the modern web browsers nowadays is perfectly acceptable.
As I know, Google Chrome browser uses ICU4C, Internet Explorer uses Uniscribe API, and Firefox uses libthai to break Thai sentences into words. For Thai people I know, how these web browsers handle line breaks in Thai is perfectly acceptable for them. (actually we used to have this problem with very early version of Firefox (1.x) but that is resolved now.)
Thai line breaking and word breaking, unlike western languages, is still considered an unsolved problem and is still actively tackled by many linguistics researchers. Currently there is no implementation that could perfectly break a sentence to Thai words. IBM ICU Boundary Analysis page contains some analysis on this problem.
Many times, it has something to do with the context. For example, the phrase "ตากลม" can be correctly broken to "ตา","กลม" or "ตาก","ลม". Each way says totally different thing but Thai readers can still perfectly understand the intended meaning, given the context.
Given that your local reviewers are already familiar with reading Thai websites, I think maybe they are too pushy on you to resolve this problem. This is common unsolvable problem for all Thai websites, web browsers, and even Microsoft Word.
It is best to wait (or contribute to IBM ICU) until Thai sentence breaking implementation gets better. Let the web browsers handle this. I don't think trying to workaround this problem worth your valuable time. As as I know, even Thai website publishers here just don't care to get this one right.
Should you need to publish a document with a perfect line/word breaking, you may consider other medium, such as PDF document in which you should have more control over the line breaks.
Hope this helps :)
The ICU and ICU4J libraries have a dictionary based word break iterator for Thai that you could use on the server side to inject breaking zero width spaces where appropriate.
Or, you could use this to build a utility that could run at build time or on delivery of translations, if you knew the spacing requirements that far in advance.
see ICU Boundary Analysis for more info. These libraries are available for C, C++, and Java.
There is a W3C working group working exactly on this (for Thai and other Southeast Asian languages). Their layout requirement draft is quite recent, from last month:
Thai Layout Requirements (Draft) (10 Jan 2023)
https://www.w3.org/International/sealreq/thai/
Thai Gap Analysis (19 Jan 2022) https://www.w3.org/TR/thai-gap/
I hope these info can feed into the fruitful discussion here.
You can also follow/join the Southeast Asia Language Enablement (sealreq) activity on GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/sealreq
Document editors are nice but they have their limitations.
What is a good alternative to them?
I already know HTML and CSS and while they can do the job, they are ill-suited for printed documents.
I was thinking in learning LaTeX, because many scholars use it. But I wonder if someone would recommend another language such as postscript.
LaTeX is fine. You don't want to write postscript by hand.
I’m using LaTeX almost exclusively nowadays, at least for text documents (everything from CV over letters to manuals).
For quick one-off notes, I’m actually using Markdown (without a renderer. I just think that Markdown preserves document structure quite nicely even when used in text-only mode).
For presentations and spreadsheets, I use appropriate applications, though. In particular, I don’t think LaTeX is that well-suited to do the former (depending on your style of presentations, obviously. Mine have next to no text though …).
I finally got a chance to write an entire paper in LaTeX for my final semester of College and found it to be easier than I thought it would be. A couple of the nice things I found about it were
A fairly lightweight syntax for most things (tables being the only real offender, but no one can get text tables right).
An extremely wide array of syntax for doing anything from automatically marking up a chemical formula to writing inline lists.
Beautiful output automatically.
Extremely easy to write modular documents where I might store a chapter in a file and then simply \include{} it in another. One particularly nice use I found for this was to include code that I had written in the document simply by referencing the files.
Wonderful support for footnotes and bibliographic references.
Libraries for just about anything you can imagine.
The major drawbacks are, IMHO:
A lack of any real direction or life in the language. It feels dead, and not because it's done.
A frustrating build process, although there are tools to help with that, from a simple bash script to a full fledged make file.
If you're interested in learning LaTeX, I would recommend starting out by reading the Not So Short Introduction to LaTeX 2e PDF.
However, I decided against using LaTeX for most things that I write these days specifically because it feels dead and has a frustrating build process. I instead switched over to MultiMarkdown, as it is well supported and can be transformed into a large array of other formats, including LaTeX which can then be hand massaged if you really need to in order to get it the format expected by some publication. If you haven't played with MultiMarkdown or Markdown before, then I highly recommend checking them out. The syntax is extremely lightweight and natural, even compared to LaTeX. I find that except for some of the higher level typographical constructs, MultiMarkdown supports everything I need on a regular basis.
My 2 cents.
It depends on what you want to do. If you are planning to write a formal document, maybe for printing too, just go for LaTex.
Not difficolt as it may appear at the very beginning but professional and fulfilling.
If Web is your goal, go for HTML / CSS.
OpenOffice or Word would do the trick in most cases; do not underestimate them, if you are going to use them (example for job) take time to learn them.
To expand on zzzzBov's commmment, LaTeX is SUPPOSED to allow the writer to concentrate on the content and allow the compiler/documentclass to handle formatting (and that usually is true). If you use HTML/CSS to format you will probably be spending more time (rather than less) doing formatting. Imagine that the LaTeX documentclass is the CSS, only it is already written for you, and your LaTeX source is the content, only the tags are more functional (such as italics or equations) than for patching between the HTML and the CSS (<div ...>). I recommend the LaTeX wikibook as an easy way to start, and the short-math-guide, it if you need mathematics. Enjoy!
I have a few hand-crafted web pages. When deploying them I would like to run them through a tool so that new smaller HTML files are created, with extraneous whitespace taken out, etc.
We already use YUICompressor for our Javascript and our CSS, and we tend to follow all of the techniques described by the Yahoo performance team.
Is there a good, free tool that does this? I prefer tools that would fit into our deployment process similarly to YUICompressor.
HTML Tidy does the job.
I use the following on one document that I generate (a rather large one). This saved me about 10% on the post-gzip size.
tidy -c -omit -ashtml -utf8 --doctype strict \
--drop-proprietary-attributes yes --output-bom no \
--wrap 0 source.html > target.html
-c — Replace surplus presentational tags and attributes
-omit — Drop optional end tags
-ashtml — use HTML rather than XHTML (HTML is leaner and XHTML provides no benefits for most use cases)
-utf8 — So we don't have to use entities for characters outside the character set (entities are more bytes)
--doctype strict — use Strict (again, leaner)
--drop-proprietary-attributes yes — get rid of proprietary junk
--output-bom no — BOMs cause issues in some clients
--wrap 0 — Have very long lines
Plain old minify will also attack your HTML for you, if you want.
But HTML minification isn't, generally, hugely effective:
Taking runs of whitespace down to one won't do that much. If you're already using gzip/deflate, that'll be compressing the whitespace quite efficiently. You can't remove all whitespace as single whitespaces can often have an effect on rendering that it is desirable to keep.
Taking comments out may have an effect, depending on how much comment content you actually have. But you'd have to be careful not to hit conditional comments.
Apart from that, there is not much in an HTML document that can be ‘minified’. Obviously the JS idea of packing variable names down to the shortest possible string is inapplicable.
Doing all this with regex, as most minifiers do, is a bit dodgy. You have to stick to a limited ‘normal’ range of markup that won't trip it up.
With HTML minification you're typically getting less gain (and less post-gzip gain) than JS/CSS minification, and for dynamically-generated pages you have more overhead (as you can't pre-minify them like with static scripts/styles). Some templating languages may already have built-in features for trimming whitespace at generation time; if available in your environment, use that.
Why do I need a Markdown with a front edit editor like WMD? What does the markdown do to the content that’s sent from the WMD editor?
How does Markdown store the content in the backend? Is it the same way like *bold* or in some other format? Why can’t I just do an html encode?
Sorry if I sounded very naïve.
It's probably helpful to take a step back and ask some of the larger questions. The issue Markdown is trying to solve is that of rich editing in the browser. Consider this: At some point, for any piece of software to enable rich text it has to describe the richness in a some manner, however that may be.
We could call that description of richness (by description of richness I mean like "this bit of text is bold" or "this bit of text is a hyperlink), we could call that description of richness "markup" -- it marks up the text with meta "richness".
Implementations of rich text can take on two approaches, either a.) hide the markup from the user or b.) let them have access to the markup.
For those who choose to hide it, the end result is very often WYSIWYG. The user is oblivious to what is happening behind the scenes. The editor takes care of the details. Think MS Word as an example. No one manipulates the Word markup format as a regular end user.
For implementations which choose to expose the markup, a markup language is then in order to allow users to interacat with it. Such markup languages would be things like HTML doing <tag> or BB code for example, doing things like [tag].
Markdown is one such of these languages.
As opposed to the former types I mentioned, Markdown has tried to design itself so that the markup renders common ASCII people already use. For example, it's common for people to asterisk their text to set it off, *important*, and this notation in Markdown is an indicator of italic.
In regards to storage, as Stephan pointed out, the system will most likely store the raw markdown, because the user will most likely need to have the possibility of editing, and the original markdown can be recalled for that purpose.
In most of the systems I've built, I store the markdown, and then normalize it to a 2nd field which caches the HTML rendering of the markdown. This way I don't have to do markdown->HTML rendering for every markdown field. It takes a little more space, but I'd rather the user have a faster response than use less DB storage space.
Care should also be taken when accepting Markdown from the browser, as it can easily contain <script> tags which need to be filtered out. Most markdown implementations will also recognize HTML intermingled with Markdown formatting, as so to be safe, you need to make sure your inputs and caches are sanitized properly.
The reason for using an alternate encoding system other than HTML is for security
Markdown and other such wiki style encoding systems do not usually support scripting languages
HTML supports scripting languages in many ways (
The two main security issues are:
Malware criminals use scripts in user generated content to attempt malware actions on the content readers computer by scripting to access known security holes
Free loaders using scripts to subvert the rest of the site by changing the content frame or styles i.e. ads, menu's, logos etc. This can also be criminal behaviour if not just annoying
By using an intermediate language such as Markdown you have total control on the rendered output
Filtering HTML is possible, but is also complex and risky
The other significant reason for an alternate encoding system is enforcement of style. Normal HTML has too many options. By limiting the available options, users can only use certain styles. The usually makes for cleaner looking and more readable content (compare SO to Ebay)
The main reason for using Markdown is the readability of a marked text. For instance, you can send it in a plain-text email and the reader will still understand the emphiasis, bullets, the text will be divided in paragraphs et cetera.
When you ask about storing data, it depends. If you enable Markdown in the WordPress blog engine, it stores data as the user has input it - in Markdown. In Stack Overflow, however, it seems like the data is stored as HTML. At least, the "Stack Overflow data dumps" contain HTML, not Markdown (I've seen people complaining) that they have to convert it back).
If you use the WMD editor, you can show the user how the outputs will look like after being converted to HTML. Even though Markdown syntax is really simple, it is not hard to make mistakes. Hence, it is best to show users the output.
Another reason for using Markdown instead of a WYSIWIG control - a WYSIWIG control allows the user to use HTML in data you are displaying on your web page. So, you have to be the one who decides when there is simply incorrect HTML and when it is an evil XSS/CSRF/whatever injection. In Markdown, you simply convert *something* to <b>something</b>, remove any unknow HTML elements and you're done.
I need to implement a simple and efficient XSS Filter in C++ for CppCMS. I can't use existing high quality filters
written in PHP because because it is high performance framework that uses C++.
The basic idea is provide a filter that have a while list of HTML tags and a white
list of options for these tags. For example. typical HTML input can consist of
<b>, <i>, tags and <a> tag with href. But straightforward implementation is not
good enough, because, even allowed simple links may include XSS:
Click On Me
There are many other examples can be found there. So I though also about a possibility to create a white list of prefixes for tags like href/src -- so I always need to check if it starts with (https?|ftp)://
Questions:
Are these assumptions are good enough for most of purposes? Meaning that If I do not
give an options for style tags and check src/href using white list of prefixes it solves XSS problems? Are there problems that can't be fixes this way?
Is there a good reference for formal grammar of HTML/XHTML in order to write simple
parser that would cleanup all incorrect of forbidden tags like <script>
You can take a look at the Anti Samy project, trying to accomplish the same thing. It's Java and .NET though.
http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_AntiSamy_Project#.NET_version
http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_AntiSamy_Project_.NET
Edit 1, A bit extra :
You can potentially come up with a very strict white listing. It should be structured well and should be pretty tight and not much flexible. When you combine flexibility, so many tags, attributes and different browsers generally you end up with a XSS vulnerability.
I don't know what is your requirements but I'd go with a strict and simple tag support (only b li h1 etc.) and then strict attribute support based on the tag (for example src is only valid under href tag), then you need to do whitelisting in the attribute values as you stated http|https|ftp or style="color|background-color" etc.
Consider this one:
<x style="express/**/ion:(alert(/bah!/))">
Also you need to think about some character whitelisting or some UTF-8 normalization, because different encodings can cause awkward issues. Such as new lines in attributes, non valid UTF-8 sequences.
All details of HTML parsing are specified in HTML 5. However implementation of it is quite a lot of work, and it doesn't matter whether you'll parse HTML exactly with all corner cases. At worst you'll end up with different DOM, but you have to sanitize DOM anyway.
As you mentioned, there are various PHP implementations of this, but I don't know of any in C++, since that's not a language typically applied to web development. Overall, it's going to depend on how complex of an implementation you want to come up with.
A very restrictive whitelist is probably the "simplest" way, but if you want to be really comprehensive I would look into doing a conversion of one of the established versions to C++, as opposed to trying to write your own from scratch. There are so many tricks to worry about, that I think you'd be better off standing on the shoulders of others that have already gone through all that.
I don't know anything about using C++ for web development, but converting PHP to it doesn't seem like it would be a particularly difficult task, PHP doesn't really have any magical capabilities that C++ won't be able to duplicate. I'm sure there will be some small hitches, but overall if you want to go the more-complex route it'd definitely still be faster to do a conversion than a full design from scratch.
HTML Purifier seems like a strong PHP implementation that is still actively maintained, there's a comparison document where the author discuss some differences between his approach and others', probably worth reading.
Whatever you come up with, definitely test it with all the examples you link, and make sure it passes all those. Good luck!