9 ms·
You didn't read the article. This isn't a config file, this is the query string of a URL, or more importantly the POST data of a form. From the article: > By
by buro9 14y ago
You didn't read the article.
This isn't a config file, this is the query string of a URL, or more importantly the POST data of a form.
From the article:
> By default, older versions of IE (<=8) will submit form data in Latin-1 encoding if possible. By including a character that can't be expressed in Latin-1, IE is forced to use UTF-8 encoding for its form submissions, which simplifies various backend processes, for example database persistence.
> If the parameter was instead utf8=true then this wouldn't trigger the UTF-8 encoding in these browsers
- Sumaso 14y ago"Hmmm... there's something wrong with that idea, but I can't quite put my finger on it...." I think your missing the sarcasm...
- jemfinch 14y agoNo, the sarcasm is obvious. It's just not very funny, and doesn't positively contribute to the level of discourse here.
- anjc 14y agoOf course it positively contributes. It's the first comment to say that it's a silly way of encoding the form as utf-8 when utf8="✘" will also do the same thing, even though it's counterintuitive.
- jerf 14y agoThat is actually what I was going for; the humor attempt was a bonus.
- anjc 14y agoConstructiveHumour=✓ Wait, true...true
- Evbn 14y agoIt is only counterintuitive because you arbitrarily assigned a different type (boolean, with members you made up) instead respecting that any utf8 character fits the utf8 type. X is used variously as true and false in Different languages, so why would you assume it means false in a language you have never used?
- anjc 14y agoWell i didn't make it up, but yeah i get your point. I didn't mean that i'd assume it means false, but it's still clearly counterintuitive to use a tick to encode as utf-8 when any character at all will do. A tick has an opposite, an X, a snowman (as in the Rails case) doesn't.
- arcatek 14y agoI have already seen a website which use "ie=☠" in the URL.
- nsxwolf 14y agoI laughed.
- tomrod 14y agoCould you explain it then? I'm really confused!
- aviraldg 14y agoThat would spoil the joke. ˙ɔıuoɹı sı ʇɹoddns ǝpoɔıun ou s,ǝɹǝɥʇ ʇɐɥʇ ǝʇɐɔıpuı oʇ ʇı buısn os 'ɹǝʇɔɐɹɐɥɔ ǝpoɔıun ɐ ɟןǝsʇı uı sı ssoɹɔ ʇɐɥʇ
- tomrod 14y agoClear enough then! But why upside down? ;-)
- SiVal 14y agoMore important to me, HOW upside down? How did you do that?
- skeletonjelly 14y agohttp://www.fliptext.org/ http://www.fliptext.org/
- jlgreco 14y agoUnicode is fun. ;)
- aviraldg 14y agoHaven't you ever tried to solve puzzles in comic books?
- gpvos 14y agoBecause he can.
- smegel 14y agoHe wasn't being sarcastic, he was being sardonic
- keefe 14y agoit's just a joke using a unicode x-ish char would still do the same as the check...
- jerf 14y agoI sort of think the snowman, or at least another character that doesn't carry the connotation of "positive" or "true", is a better idea... but I have to admit any developer who would make that mistake is, alas, so far in over their head anyhow that there's probably no saving them from themselves, so, you know, check's cool.
- anjc 14y agoTo be fair, and as you basically said, having “utf8=✓" is counterintuitive when it's being used as an IE hack rather than an actual descriptive parameter. I could imagine many competent enough developers seeing this parameter in someone else's code, or in a book or something, and immediately thinking that changing the tick to an X would make a difference, because that'd only make sense.
- keefe 14y agoI think that vaguely competent would require analytical skills good enough to say, ok utf8="non ascii character", now if I change it to another nonascii character is that likely to change my request's execution path in the server...
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- alexkus 14y agoParkinson's law of triviality.