After an upgrade, my Thnderbird started to use a weird US-date format and forgot my setting for this. I did not find any setting either. But this seems to work fine:
Create a shell script
#!/bin/bash
export LC_TIME=sv_SE.utf8
export LC_DATE=sv_SE.utf8
exec /usr/bin/thunderbird
and make sure that this gets called when thunderbird is started instead of directly /usr/bin/thunderbird.
Of course Strings are today in some way Unicode. In this article we assume code points as the building blocks of Strings. That means for example in the Java-world, that we are talking about one code point being comprised of one Java character for typical European languages, using Latin, Greek or Cyrillic alphabets including extensions to support all languages typically using these alphabets, for example. But when moving to Asian languages, a code point can also consist of two Java characters and there are Strings that are illegal from Unicode perspective, because they contain characters that should be combined in a way that cannot be combined properly. So here we assume, that Strings consist of sequences of bytes or two-byte characters or whatever encoding that properly express a sequence of code points. There are many interesting issues when dealing with some Asian languages that we will not cover here today.
Now there are a lot of possibilities to create Strings, that look the same, but are actually different. We are not talking about „0“ and „O“ or „1“ and „l“ and „I“ that might look similar in some fonts, but should not look similar, because we actually depend on their distinctness, even on their visual distinctness. Unfortunately we have the bad habit of using traditional typewriter fonts, that make it hard to distinguish these, for source code, where it would be so crucial. But for today, we just assume that we always look hard enough to solve this issue.
The classical example of what looks the same is whitespace. We have ordinary space “ “ and no break space “ „, that are meant to look exactly the same, but to expose a slightly different behavior. There are tons of possibilities to create exactly the same look with different combinations of whitespace. But this is kind of a special case, because in terms of semantics often carries little information and we want to disregard it to some extent when comparing strings. Typical examples are stripping of leading and trailing whitespace of the string or of the lines contained within it and replacing tabulators with the number of spaces that would be equivalent. Or even to replace any amount of adjacent whitespace within a line by a single space. Again, handling of different whitespace code points might require different rules, so it is good to be careful in not putting to much logic and it is better to rely on a library to at least apply exactly the same rules in equivalent situations.
Another example that we actually might know is that certain characters look the same or almost the same in the Cyrillic, Greek and Latin alphabets. I try to give an idea of the meaning of the Greek and Cyrillic characters, but they depend on the language, the dialect and even the word, the word form or the actual occurrence of the letter in the word…
| Latin | Cyrillic | Greek | meaning of Cyrillic Letter | meaning of Greek letter |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | А | A | like Latin | like Latin |
| B | В | B | like Latin V | Beta (like V in new Greek) |
| C | С | like Latin S | ||
| E | Е | E | like Latin | Epsilon (like Latin E) |
| Г | H | like Latin G | Gamma (like Latin G) | |
| H | Н | Η | like Latin N | Eta (like Latin I in new Greek) |
| J | Ј | Serbian Ј, like German J | ||
| K | К | Κ | like Latin | Kappa (like Latin K) |
| M | М | Μ | like Latin | Mu (like Latin M) |
| N | Ν | Nu (like Latin N) | ||
| O | О | Ο | like Latin | Omikron (like Latin O) |
| P | Р | Ρ | like Latin R | Rho (like Latin R) |
| П | Π | like Latin P | Pi (like Latin P) | |
| T | Т | Τ | like Latin | Tau (like Latin T) |
| Ф | Φ | like Latin F | Phi (like Latin F) | |
| X | Х | Χ | like German CH | Chi (like German CH) |
| Y | У | Υ | like Latin U | Upsilon (like Latin U) |
| Z | Ζ | Zeta (like German Z) | ||
| I | І | Ι | Ukrainian I | Iota (like Latin I) |
In this case we usually want the characters to look the same or at least very similar, because that is how to correctly display them, but we do want them to be different when comparing strings.
While these examples are kind of obvious, there is another one that we tend to ignore, but that will eventually catch us. There are so called combining characters, that should actually be named „combining code points“, but here we go. That means that we can put them after a letter and they will combine to form a letter with diacritical marks. A typical example is the letter „U“ that can be combined with two dots “ ̈ ̈“ to form an „Ü“, which looks the same as the „Ü“ that is composed of one code point. It is meant to look the same, but it also has the same meaning, at least for most purposes. What we see is the Glyph. We see the difference when we prefix each code point with a minus or a space: „Ü“ -> „-U-̈“ or “ U ̈“, while the second one is transformed like this: „Ü“ -> „-Ü“ or “ Ü“, as we would expect.
While the way to express the Glyph in such a way with two code points is not very well known and thus not very common, we actually see it already today when we look at Wikipedia articles. In some languages, where the pronunciations is ambiguous, it can be made clear by putting an accent mark on one vowel, as for example Кириллица, which puts an accent mark on the term in the beginning of the article like this: „Кири́ллица“. Since in Cyrillic Alphabet accent marks are unfortunately not used in normal writing, it comes in handy that the combining accent also works with cyrillic letter. When putting minus-signs between the code points it looks like this: „К-и-р-и-́-л-л-и-ц-а“ or with spaces like this: „К и р и ́ л л и ц а“. So Strings that we encounter in our programs will contain these combining characters in the future. While we can prohibit them, it is better to embrace this and it is actually not too hard, if we use decent libraries. Java has the Normalizer class in its built in library, that can convert to one or the other convention of expressing such glyphs and then allowing comparison in the way that we actually mean.
Unfortunately issues like semantic lengths of strings or semantic positions become even harder than they already are after moving from characters to code points. And we can be sure that Unicode has still more to offer to complicate things, if we dig deeper. The typical answer that we get on most web sites that talk about these issues is something like: „The length of strings and positions within strings are surprisingly irrelevant to most programs.“
In the end of the day, jobs that have been trivial in the past are now becoming a big deal and we need to learn to think of comparison, length, position, regular expressions, sorting and all kinds of string functionality with bytes, characters, code points and glyphs in mind.
What can our current libraries already do for us, what are we missing in them, considering different programming languages, databases, text files and network transmission?
A lot of things in today’s IT landscape have been unified and interoperability is much better than 20 years ago.
Some examples:
Interoperability is today for many of us interoperability between Linux (and possibly some other rare Posix/Unix-like systems) and Win32/Win64 (MS-Windows).
Experienced Linux users are used to having the forward slash („/“) as file path separator. The backslash is used for escaping special characters. In the MS-Windows-world we often see the backslash („\“) as file path separator. That is enforced in the CMD-window, because it does not pass through the forward slash. My experience with low level Win32/Win64 libraries shows that they understand both variants equally well. Anyway do Ruby, Perl, Java, Cygwin and others support the forward slash. So there is hardly ever any need to check the OS and use backslash or forward slash depending on that, other than for cmd/bat-scripts, but who wants them for more then five lines? I strongly recommend just using the forward slash also under MS-Windows when writing programs in Java, Perl, Scala, Ruby, … It makes life also easier, because the backslash often has to be doubled and it is sometimes hard to keep track of how many backslashes need to be written and to read it.
The line ending is a bit tricky. Linux and Unix use just a „Linefeed“ („\n“=Ctrl-J). For MS-DOS and MS-Windows the combination „Carriage-Return+Linefeed“ („\r\n“=Ctrl-M Ctrl-J) has become the default. Most of today’s programs do not care and understand both variants more or less equally well. Only Notepad does get confused with Linefeed-only files, but notepad is a bad choice anyway. Better Editors (gvim, emacs, ultraedit, scite, …) exist. On the other hand we get problems with the MS-Windows-line-termination in the case of executable scripts. Usually the contain a first line like „#/usr/bin/ruby“. The OS uses that as hint on how to execute them, in this case by calling /usr/bin/ruby. If the line ends with Ctrl-M Ctrl-J, then the OS tries to find a program „/usr/bin/ruby^M“ (^M = Ctrl-M = „\r“), which of course does not exist and we just get an obscure error message.
It is easy to do the conversion:
$ perl -i~ -p -e ’s/\r//g;‘ script
Or the other direction:
$ perl -i~ -p -e ’s/\n/\r\n/g;‘ textfile
For those who use subversion there are ways to enforce a certain way of line endings. Even git supports this.
In many countries of Europe we have to readjust our watches and clocks today, unless they do it automatically.
It is interesting, that dealing with this has always been a great challenge for software engineers and a very high two digit percentage of software that in some way or other deals with time, does not handle it correctly. Operating systems and standard software are doing a very good job on this, but specialized software that is written today very often does not properly handle the switch. It usually does not matter, because it just results in effects like having rare phone calls charged for an hour too much, to give an example. And really critical software is properly tested for this, I hope. But software developers who are able to deal with this properly are less much than 100%, and even those who are at least able to accept that they do not know and prepared to listen to somebody who knows it, are less than 100%. And daylight saving is really a very very minor invisible side issue for most software projects. They have a task to perform and usually they do that task well enough… So we will continue to develop software that is not really properly handling daylight saving.
One more reason to stop this changing of clocks twice a year, especially since the saving of energy, that was once mentioned as advantage, does not seem to be significant.
Java uses a nice pragmatic file format for simple configuration tasks and for internationalization of applications. It is called Java properties file or simply „.properties file“. It contains simple key value pairs. For most configuration task this is useful and easy to read and edit. Nested configurations can be expressed by simple using dots („.“) as part of the key. This was introduced already in Java 1.0. For internationalization there is a simple way to create properties files with almost the same name, but a language code just before the .properties-suffix. The concept is called „resource bundle“. Whenever a language specific string is needed, the program just knows a unique key and performs a lookup.
The unpleasant part of this is that these files are in the style of the 1990es encoded in ISO-8859-1, which is only covering a few languages in western, central and northern Europe. For other languages as a workaround an \u followed by the 4 digit hex code can be used to express UTF-16 encoding, but this is not in any way readable or easy to edit. Usually we want to use UTF-8 or in some cases real UTF-16, without this \u-hack.
A way to deal with this is using the native2ascii-converter, that can convert UTF-8 or UTF-16 to the format of properties files. By using some .uproperties-files, which are UTF-8 and converting them to .properties-files using native2ascee as part of the build process this can be addressed. It is still a hack, but properly done it should not hurt too much, apart from the work it takes to get this working. I would strongly recommend to make sure the converted and unconverted files never get mixed up. This is extremely important, because this is not easily detected in case of UTF-8 with typical central European content, but it creates ugly errors that we are used to see like „sch�ner Zeichensalat“ instead of „schöner Zeichensalat“. But we only discover it, when the files are already quite messed up, because at least in German the umlaut characters are only a small fraction of the text, but still annoying if messed up. So I would recommend another suffix to make this clear.
The bad thing is that most JVM-languages have been kind of „lazy“ (which is a good thing, usually) and have used some of Java’s infrastructures for this, thus inherited the problem from Java.
Another way to deal with this is to use XML-files, which are actually by default in UTF-8 and which can be configured to be UTF-16. With some work on development or search of existing implementations there should be ways to do the internationalization this way.
Typically some process needs to be added, because translators are often non-IT-people who use some tool that displays the texts in the original languages and accepts the translation. For good translations, the translator should actually use the software to see the context, but this is another topic for the future. Possibly there needs to be some conversion from the data provided by the translator into XML, uproperties, .properties or whatever is used. These should be automated by scripts or even by the build process and merge new translations properly with existing ones.
Anyway, Java 9 Java 9 will be helpful in this issue. Finally Java-9-properties that are used as resource bundles for internationalization can be UTF-8.
Some of us still remember the times when it was recommended to avoid „special characters“ when writing on the computer. Some keyboards did not contain „Umlaut“-characters in Germany and we fell back to the ugly, but generally understandable way of replacing the German special characters like this: ä->ae, ö->oe, ü->ue, ß->sz or ß->ss. This was due to the lack of decent keyboards, decent entry methods, but also due to transmission methods that stripped the upper bit. It did happen in emails that they where „enhanced“ like this: ä->d, ö->v, ü->|,… So we had to know our ways and sometimes use ae oe ue ss. Similar issues applied to other languages like the Scandinavian languages, Spanish, French, Italian, Hungarian, Croatian, Slovenian, Slovak, Serbian, the Baltic languages, Esperanto,… in short to all languages that could regularly be written with the Latin alphabet but required some additional letters to be written properly.
When we wrote on paper, the requirement to write properly was more obvious, while email and other electronic communication via the internet of those could be explained as being something like short wave radio. It worked globally, but with some degradation of quality compared to other media of the time. So for example with TeX it was possible to write the German special letters (and others in a similar way) like this: ä->\“a, ö->\“o, ü->\“u, ß->\ss and later even like this ä->“a, ö->“o, ü->“u, ß->“s, which some people, including myself, even used for email and other electronic communication when the proper way was not possible. I wrote Emacs-Lisp-Software that could put my Emacs in a mode where the Umlaut keys actually produced these combination when being typed and I even figured out how to tweak an xterm window for that for the sake of using IRC where Umlaut letters did not at all work and quick online typing was the way to go, where the Umlaut-characters where automatically typed because I used 10-finger system typing words, not characters.
On the other hand TeX could be configured to process Umlaut characters properly (more or less, up to the issue of hyphenation) and I wrote Macros to do this and provided them to CTAN, the repository for TeX-related software in the internet around 1994 or so. Later a better and more generic solution become part of standard TeX and superseded this, which was a good thing. So TeX guys could type ä ö ü ß and I strongly recommended (and still recommend) to actually do so. It works, it is more user friendly and in the end the computer should adapt to the humans not vice versa.
The web could process Umlaut characters (and everything) from day one. The transfer was not an issue, it could handle binary data like images, so no stripping of high bit or so was happening and the umlaut characters just went through. For people having problems to find them on the keyboard, transcriptions like this were created: ä->ä ö->ö ü->ü ß->ß. I used them not knowing that they where not actually needed, but I relied on a Perl script to do the conversion so it was possible to actually type them properly.
Now some languages like Russian, Chinese, Greek, Japanese, Georgian, Thai, Korean use a totally different alphabet, so they had to solve this earlier, but others might know better how it was done in the early days. Probably it helped develop the technology. Even harder are languages like Arabic, Hebrew, and Farsi, that are written right to left. It is still ugly when editing a Wikipedia page and the switching between left-to-right and right-to-left occurs correctly, but magically and unexpected.
While ISO-8859-x seemed to solve the issue for most European languages and ISO-8859-1 became the de-facto standard in many areas, this was eventually a dead end, because only Unicode provided a way for hosting all live languages, which is what we eventually wanted, because even in quite closed environments excluding some combinations of languages in the same document will at some point of time prove to be a mistake. This has its issues. The most painful is that files and badly transmitted content do not have a clear information about the encoding attached to them. The same applies to Strings in some programming languages. We need to know from the context what it is. And now UTF-8 is becoming the predominant encoding, but in many areas ISO-8859-x or the weird cp1252 still prevail and when we get the encoding or the implicit conversions wrong, the Umlaut characters or whatever we have gets messed up. I would recommend to work carefully and keep IT-systems, configurations and programs well maintained and documented and to move to UTF-8 whenever possible. Falling back to ae oe ue for content is sixties- and seventies-technology.
Now I still do see an issue with names that are both technical and human readable like file names and names of attachments or variable names and function names in programming languages. While these do very often allow Umlaut characters, I would still prefer the ugly transcriptions in this area, because a mismatch of encoding becomes more annoying and ugly to handle than if it is just concerning text, where we as human readers are a bit more tolerant than computers, so tolerant that we would even read the ugly replacements of the old days.
But for content, we should insist on writing it with our alphabet. And move away from the ISO-8869-x encodings to UTF-8.
Links (this Blog):
In the old days of the web, more than 20 years ago, we found a possibility to write German Umlaut letters and a lot of other letters and symbols using pure ASCII. These are called „entities“, btw.
Many people, including myself, started writing web pages using these transcriptions, in the assumption that they were required. Actually in the early days of the web there were some rumors that some browsers actually did not understand the character encodings that contained these letters properly, which was kind of plausible, because the late 80s and the 90s were the transition period where people discovered that computers are useful outside of the United States and at least for non-IT-guys it was or it should have been a natural requirement that computers understand their language or at least can process, store and transmit texts using the proper characters of the language. In case of German language this was not so terrible, because there were transcriptions for the special characters (ä->ae, ö->oe, ü->ue, ß->ss) that were somewhat ugly, but widely understandable to native German speakers. Other languages like Russian, Greek, Arabic or East-Asian languages were in more trouble, because they consist of „special characters“ only.
Anyway, this „ä“-transcription for web pages, which is actually superior to the „ae“, because the reader of the web page will read the correct „ä“, was part of the HTML-standard to support writing characters not on the keyboard. This was a useful feature in those days, but today we can find web pages that help use with the transliteration or just look up the word with the special characters in the web in order to write it correctly. Then we can as well copy it into our HTML-code, including all the special characters.
There could be some argument about UTF-8 vs. UTF-16 vs. ISO-8859-x as possible encodings of the web page. But in the area of the web this was never really an issue, because the web pages have headers that should be present and inform the browser about the encoding. Now I recommend to use UTF-8 as the default, because that includes all the potential characters that we might want to use sporadically. And then the Umlaut kann just directly be part of the HTML content. I convereted all my web pages to use Umlaut-letters properly, where needed, without using entities in the mid 90s.
Some entities are still useful:
Whoever is working with MS-Windows, should know these black windows with CMD running in them, even though they are not really popular. The Unix and Linux guys hate them, because they are really primitive compared to their shells. Windows guys like to work graphically. Or they prefer powershell or bash with cygwin. Linux and Unix have the equivalent of these windows, but usually they are white. Being able to configure the colors on both systems in any way this is of no relevance.
NT-based MS-Windows systems (NT 3.x, 4.x, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 10) have several subsystems and programs are running in them, for example Win64, Win32 (or Wow64 on 64-bit-systems), Win16, cygwin (if installed), DOS… Because programs for the DOS subsystem are typically started in a CMD window, and because some of the DOS commands have equally named and similarly operating pendents in the CMD window, the CMD window is sometimes called DOS-window, which is just incorrect. Actually this black window comes into existence in many situations. Whenever a program is started that has input or output (stdin, stdout, stderr), a black window is provided aroudn, if no redirection is in place. This applies for CMD. Under Linux (and Unix) with X11 it is the other way round. You start the program that provides the window and it automatically starts the default shell within that window, unless something else is stated.
Now I recommend an experiment. You just need an MS-Windows installation with any graphical editor like emacs, gvim, ultraedit, textpad, scite, or even notepad. And a cmd-window.
echo "xäöüx" > filec.txt. Yes, there are ways to type these letters even with an American keyboard. 🙂type fileg.txtIt is a feature or bug, that all common MS-Windows versions are putting the umlauts to different positions then the graphical editors. If you know how to fix this, let me know.
What has happened? In the early 80es MS-DOS came into existence. By that time standards for character encoding were not very good. Only ASCII or ISO-646-IRV existed, which was at least a big step ahead of EBCDIC. But this standardized only the lower 128 characters (7 Bit) and lacked at some characters for almost any language other than English. It was tried to put a small number of these additional letters into the positions of irrelevant characters like „@“, „[„, „~“, „$“ etc. And software vendors started to make use of the upper 128 characters. Commodore, Atari, MS-DOS, Apple, NeXT, TeX and „any“ software came up with a specific way for that, often specific for a language region.
These solutions where incompatible with each other between different software systems, sometimes even between versions or language versions of the same software. Remember that at that time networks were unusual and when they existed, they were proprietary to the operating system with bridge solutions being extremely difficult to implement. Even formats for floppy disks (the three-dimensional incarnations of the save button) had proprietary formats. So it did not hurt so much to have incompatible encodings.
But relatively early X11 which became the typical graphical system for Unix and later Linux started to use standard encodings like the ISO-8859-x family, UTF-8 and UTF-16. Linux was already on ISO-8859-1 in version 0.99 in the early 90es and never tried to invent its own character encoding. Thank god for that….
Today all relevant systems have moved to Unicode standard and standardized encodings like ISO-8869-x, UTF-8, UTF-16… But MS-Windows has done that only partially. The graphical system is using modern encodings or at leas Cp1252, which is a decent approximation. But the text based system with the black window, in which CMD is running, is still using encodings from the MS-DOS times more than 30 years ago, like Cp850. This results in a break within the system, which is at least very annoying, when working with cygwin or CMD-windows.
Those who have a lot of courage can change this in the registry. Just change the entries for OEMCP and OEMHAL in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Nls\CodePage simultaneously. One of them is for input, the other one for output. So if you change only one, you will even get inconsistencies within the window… Sleep well with these night mares. 🙂
Research in the internet has revealed that some have tried to change to utf-8 (CP65001) and got a system that could not even boot as a result. Try it with a copy of a virtual system without too much risk, if you like… I have not verified this, so maybe it is just bad rumors to create damage for a great company that has brought is this interesting zoo of encodings within the same system. But anyway, try it at your own risk.
Maybe something like chcp and chhal can work as well. I have not tried that either…
It is up to you if you consider this whole issue a bug or a feature.
The PDF format has experienced a success story on its way from being a quasi proprietary format that could only be dealt with using Adobe tools to a format that is specified and standardized and can be dealt with using open source tools and tools from different vendors. It has become accepted that PDF is primarily a print format and that for web content HTML is the better choice, which was not clear 15 years ago, when people coming from print layout who just considered themselves trivially capable of adding web to their portfolio just wanted to build whole web pages by just using PDF instead of HTML.
Now the format did change over time and there are always PDF files that use specific features that do not work in certain PDF viewers.
But there are requirements for maintaining documents over a long period of time. Just consider long term contracts that have a duration of 50-100 years. The associated documents usually need to be retained for that duration plus ten years. Alone the issue of storing data for such a long time and being able to read it physically is a challenge, but assuming that this issue is addressed and files can still be read in 110 years, the file format should be readable.
Now companies disappear. A lot of them in 100 years, probably even big ones like Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, Oracle and others. We do not know which companies will disappear, only that it is very likely that some companies that are big now will disappear. Proprietary software may make it to another vendor when shutting down the company, to pay the salaries of the former employees for some more days. But it might eventually disappear as well. Open source software has a better chance of being available in 100 years, but that cannot be absolutely guaranteed either, unless special attention is given to that software over such a long time. And if software is not maintained, it is highly unlikely that it will be able to run on the platforms that are common in 100 years.
So it is good to create a stable and simplified standard for long term archiving. Software for accessing that can be written from scratch based on that specification. And it is more likely to remain available, if continuous need for it can be seen.
The idea is a format called PDF/A, where A stands for „archive“, which is an option for storing PDF files over a very long period of time. Many cool features of PDF have been removed from PDF/A and make it more robust and easy to use. Important is also not to rely on additional data sources, for example for passwords of encrypted PDF files or for fonts. Encryption with password protection is a bad thing because it is quite likely that the password is gone in 100 years. Fonts need to be included, because finding them in 100 years might not be trivial. This usually means that proprietary fonts have to be avoided, unless the licensing allows inclusion of the fonts into the PDF file and unlimited reading. Including JavaScript, Video, Audio or Forms is also a bad idea. Video should be archived separately and it has the same issues as PDF for long term archiving.
It is a nice thing to be able to use random access files and to have the possibility to efficiently move to any byte position for reading or writing.
This is even true for text files that have a fixed number of bytes per character, for example exactly one, exactly two or exactly four bytes per character. Maybe we should prefer the term „code point“ here.
Now the new standard for text files is UTF-8. In many languages each character is usually just one byte. But when moving to an arbitrary byte position this may be in the middle of a byte sequence comprising just one character (code point) and not at the beginning of a character. How should that be handled without reading the whole file up to that position?
It is not that bad, because UTF-8 is self synchronizing. It can be seen if a particular byte is the first byte of a byte sequence or a successive one. First bytes start with 0 or 11, successive bytes start with 10. So by moving forward or backward a little bit that can be handled. So going to a rough position is quite possible, when knowledge of the average number of bytes per character for that language is around.
But when we do not want to go to a rough character position or to an almost exact byte position, but to an exact character position, which is usually the requirement that we have, then things get hard.
We either need to read the file from the beginning to be sure or we need to use an indexing structure which helps starting in the middle and only completely reading a small section of the file. This can be done with extra effort as long as data is only appended to the end, but never overwritten in the middle of the file.
But dealing with UTF-8 and random access is much harder than with bytes. Indexing structures need to be maintained in memory when accessing the file or even as part of the file.