Jeff King <p...@peff.net> писал в своём письме Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:36:09
+0300:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:50:04AM +0300, Роман Донченко wrote:
The RFC says that they are to be concatenated after decoding (i.e. the
intervening whitespace is ignored).
I change the sender's name to an all-Cyrillic string in the tests so
that
its encoded form goes over the 76 characters in a line limit, forcing
format-patch to split it into multiple encoded words.
Since I have to modify the regular expression for an encoded word
anyway,
I take the opportunity to bring it closer to the spec, most notably
disallowing embedded spaces and making it case-insensitive (thus
allowing
the encoding to be specified as both "q" and "Q").
The overall goal makes sense to me. Thanks for working on this. I have a
few questions/comments, though.
sub unquote_rfc2047 {
local ($_) = @_;
+
+ my $et = qr/[!->@-~]+/; # encoded-text from RFC 2047
+ my $sep = qr/[ \t]+/;
+ my $encoded_word = qr/=\?($et)\?q\?($et)\?=/i;
The first $et in $encoded_word is actually the charset, which is defined
by RFC 2047 as:
charset = token ; see section 3
token = 1*<Any CHAR except SPACE, CTLs, and especials>
especials = "(" / ")" / "<" / ">" / "@" / "," / ";" / ":" / "
<"> / "/" / "[" / "]" / "?" / "." / "="
Your regex is a little more liberal. I doubt that it is a big deal in
practice (actually, in practice, I suspect [a-zA-Z0-9-] would be fine).
But if we are tightening things up in general, it may make sense to do
so here (and I notice that is_rfc2047_quoted does a more thorough $token
definition, and it probably makes sense for the two functions to be
consistent).
Yeah, I did realize that token is more restrictive than encoded-text, but
I didn't want to stray too far from the subject line of the patch. What
I'll probably do is split the patch into two, one for regex tweaking and
one for multiple-word handling. And yeah, I'll try to make the two
functions use the same regexes.
For your definition of encoded-text, RFC 2047 says:
encoded-text = 1*<Any printable ASCII character other than "?"
or SPACE>
It looks like you pulled the definition of $et from is_rfc2047_quoted,
but I am not clear on where that original came from (it is from a3a8262,
but that commit message does not explain the regex).
No, it's actually an independent discovery. :-) I don't think it needs
explanation, though - it's just a character class with two ranges covering
every printable character but the question mark.
Also, I note that we handle 'q'-style encodings here, but not 'b'. I
wonder if it is worth adding that in while we are in the area (it is not
a big deal if you always send-email git-generated patches, as we never
generate it).
I could add "b" decoding, but since format-patch never generates "b"
encodings, testing would be a problem. And I'd rather not do it without
any tests.
+ s{$encoded_word(?:$sep$encoded_word)+}{
If I am reading this right, it requires at least two $encoded_words.
Should this "+" be a "*"?
I hang my head in shame. Looks like I'll have to add more tests...
+ my @words = split $sep, $&;
+ foreach (@words) {
+ m/$encoded_word/;
+ $encoding = $1;
+ $_ = $2;
+ s/_/ /g;
+ s/=([0-9A-F]{2})/chr(hex($1))/eg;
In the spirit of your earlier change, should this final regex be
case-insensitive? RFC 2047 says only "Upper case should be used for
hexadecimal digits "A" through "F." but that does not seem like a "MUST"
to me.
Sounds reasonable.
Roman.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
