BLOG

Character encoding

This morning, someone asked an interesting question.

Last time I worked with the actual HTML design of emails (a long time ago), <head> was not really needed. Is this still true for the most part? Any reason why you still want to include <head> + meta, title tags in emails nowadays?

There are several bits of information in the <head> part of an HTML document that can affect the rendering of it – there’s the doctype, which will control the html rendering model, there’s often some css which will control the styling, and there’s often a meta tag that states what character set is used in the document.
That last one is interesting in the case of a piece of HTML that’s being sent as part of a MIME email – as MIME already has a perfectly good way of specifying the character set a message has, as part of the Content-Type header. I looked at a few bulk messages I’d received recently and, sure enough, most of them include the <head> section, and have a meta tag in there that defines the character set. All of them have a character set defined in the Content-Type header. Sometimes those character sets didn’t match:

Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv=”Content-Type” content=”text/html; charset=windows-1252″>
<meta name=”title” content=”New CS5.5 Web Premium” />a snippet from this mornings email

What happens when they don’t match? I don’t think it’s defined anywhere. Time for some empirical testing.
Testing! For Science!
I needed to create some test emails which would be visibly different depending on which character set the mail client decided to use. I picked out two character sets – ISO-8859-15 and ISO-8859-16, as they differ from each other and from ISO-8859-1 enough that I could differentiate them just by the way two characters were rendered.
The byte 0xfd renders as e-with-a-tail (ę) in ISO-8859-16 and as y-acute (ý) in the other two character sets, while 0xa4 renders as the generic currency symbol (¤) in ISO-8859-1 and as a euro symbol (€) in the other two. I included the characters in two different ways in each test message – once as a raw character in the body of the message (=a4 or =fd in quoted-printable format), and once as a numeric HTML entity (&#164; or &#253;).
This is what I found:

Mail client Mime charset HTML meta charset Raw character HTML entity
Mail.app -15 -16 -15 -1
Gmail -15 -1
Mail.app -16 -15 -16 -1
Gmail -1 -1
Mail.app -15 none -15 -1
Gmail -1 -1
Mail.app none -16 broke -1
Gmail -1 -1
Mail.app us-ascii -16 broke -1
Gmail -1 -1

 
There are several things to see from this data. The simple one first – regardless of which character set I declared, and where I declared it, both mail clients rendered characters written as HTML numeric entities (“&#164;”) consistently in ISO-8859-1. (This isn’t really a surprise, as it’s how the HTML specs define them.)
Raw characters were much less consistent. Mail.app consistently used the character set declared in the MIME Content-Type header when it was set to something reasonable, and ignored the encoding in the HTML meta tag. Giving it an unreasonable character set in the Content-Type header caused it to render 0xfd as a double dagger (‡), which makes no sense at all in any character set I can find. Gmail managed to render the raw character in ISO-8859-15 correctly, but gave up and fell back to using ISO-8859-1 for everything else.
Conclusions
There are a few things we can conclude from this, I think, even though it really needs some comparisons with different mail clients, and some testing with other character sets (including unicode and some of the asian sets).

  1. Don’t bother with putting HTML meta content-type tags in your HTML
  2. Send your text/html parts as plain 7 bit ascii, using HTML entities for non-ascii characters
  3. It might be less confusing to use named entities such as &copy; rather than numeric ones such as &#169;
  4. If you’re generating numeric entities from user-generated input, be wary of input that’s not ISO-8859-1 or Windows-1252
  5. Character set conversion is hard, lets go unicode

I’ve made the test emails I used available for download. From a unix prompt, with swaks installed, you can send them like this:
for i in charset*.eml ; do swaks –to your@email.address –from your@email.address –server your.email.server –data – <$i; done
 
 

1 comment

  1. Ros Hodgekiss says

    Hey Steve, thank you for the excellent research here! It might be worth mentioning that a lot of issues arise when importing HTML emails to an ESP – for example, we send using UTF-8 and every now and then, folks run into issues when importing HTML with other encodings into the app.
    Lets not even start on encoding issues in Hotmail.
    Thanks again for the tips – it’s advice that we can all use.

Comment:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.