I’ve written about some of the issues with depending on zip as a packaging format in the past. As people know, Web Apps is depending on Zip as the packaging format for Widgets.
Zip the good
Zip has a lot going for it. It is ubiquitous and dependable… so long as you don’t want to share files across cultures.
Zip the bad
The Zip spec does not seem to know that there are normalization models for UTF-8, when there are actually 4 (or more, because there is some non-standard ones too!). The Zip file gives no guidance as to how file names inside zip files are to be normalized.
Consider, when a zip file is created on Linux, it just writes the bytes for the file name in the encoding of the underlying file system. So, if the file system is in ISO-8859-1, the bytes are written in ISO-8859-1. This may seem ok, but when you decompress the zip file on Windows, which runs on encoding Windows-1252, the file names get all mangled. If the underlying encoding of the file system on Linux is something else, you won’t be able to share files with other systems at all. So in this case, it is not Window’s fault.
The Zip spec says that the only supported encodings are CP437 and UTF-8, but everyone has ignored that. Implementers just encode file names however they want (usually byte for byte as they are in the OS… see table below).
It gets worst! because MacOS runs on some weird non-standard decomposed Unicode mode, you can only share zip files with other MacOs users. According to this email, the LimeWire guys also ran into a similar problem with regards to encodings in MacOS:
“for example a French, German or Spanish Windows user cannot exchange files that contain [file names with] French, German or Spanish accents with a French, German or Spanish Macintosh users”
The following table illustrates the problem:
|File name||Zip in Windows||Zip in Linux||Zip in Mac OS|
|ñ||a4 (Extended US-ASCII/CP437)||C3 B1 (UTF-8 NFC)||6E CC 83 (UTF-8 NFD)|
Yes! holly crap! three different byte sequences corresponding to different character encodings.
The only way around this would be a *special* custom-built widget zipping tool that normalizes file name strings to NFC. If the widget engine needs to decompress the widget to disk, then it would take the NFC and convert them to the operating system’s native encoding (or store the files in memory, and reference them that way). This affects the URI scheme and DOM normalization of Widgets, so Web Apps will have to deal with it eventually… but not sure exactly how.