zacwest

I noticed that ls output is sorted case-sensitively on macOS; that is, “abc” is sorted after “Xyz.” It doesn’t appear there are any mechanisms to get ls to do a case-insensitive sort, either. To work around this in a script I was writing, I looked to sort to do this for me, and stumbled upon the always-confusing flag:

-f, --ignore-case: Convert all lowercase characters to their uppercase equivalent before comparison, that is, perform case-independent sorting.

Which brings about the question: what does -f have to do with case-insensitive sorting? The answer to this part of the mystery is more apparent in the coreutils version, which describes it as:

-f, --ignore-case: fold lower case to upper case characters

So the -f short-form flag is for “fold.” Case folding is a mechanism for comparing strings while mapping some characters to others, or in this case mapping lowercase to uppercase using Unicode’s Case Folding table.

The long-form version of this flag was added in 2001, citing as “add support for long options.” The short-form version was added in 1993, likely for compatibility with some pre-existing Unix version. The first version of the POSIX standard in “Commands and Utilities, Issue 4, Version 2” (1994, pg. 647) doesn’t even use the word “fold,” defining it as:

-f: Consider all lower-case characters that have upper-case equivalents, according to the current setting of LC_CTYPE, to be the upper-case equivalent for the purposes of comparison.

Sadly, the oldest version of sort that I can find is from 4.4BSD-lite2, which describes it the same as macOS does now, also without the word “fold” in sight. I’m guessing some older, more ancient documentation for proprietary Unix is floating around somewhere that describes the flags, too.

Amusingly, the option you’d think would be the case-insensitive comparison flag, -i, is instead “ignore all non-printable characters.” This is a great example of picking a precise-but-confusing name for something and getting stuck with it until the end of time.

I run Pi-Hole to prevent clients on my network from loading dangerous or gross things like advertisements or tracking scripts. This normally works great: it functions on all devices without requiring configuration and I don’t need to think about it too often.

I’ve also been using Firefox a lot more often lately, partly because Big Sur introduced a lot of Safari regressions and sites like Twitter are broken regularly, and partly because I like the features it’s coming out with like HTTPS-only mode.

Unfortunately, Firefox and Pi-Hole do not play nicely together when it comes to certain websites. For example, when loading sfchronicle.com several of its trackers have performance issues:

When Firefox comes across a host which resolves to 0.0.0.0, it appears to have some kind of internal retry mechanism that, combined with HTML’s sequential loading of scripts, causes a cascading set of delays making loading take an extremely long time.

Fortunately, Pi-Hole’s behavior of returning 0.0.0.0 for disallowed hosts is configurable. Changing its BLOCKINGMODE to NODATA changes the resolution behavior from:

$ dig +noall +question +answer secure.quantserve.com
  ;secure.quantserve.com.   IN  A
  secure.quantserve.com.  2 IN  A 0.0.0.0

to:

$ dig +noall +question +answer secure.quantserve.com
  ;secure.quantserve.com.   IN  A

Instead of providing an IP address, the response we get is instead that there are no A records for the domain, and Firefox gives up a lot faster, taking a few milliseconds instead of a few seconds. The Pi-Hole documentation on blocking modes provides a caveat:

…experiments suggest that clients may try to resolve blocked domains more often compared to NULL blocking…

The default blocking behavior (NULL) is returning 0.0.0.0. I have not come across any issues with this change, but I also don’t think I’d notice if DNS requests drastically increased on my network.

This doesn’t resolve all of the performance issues on the SF Chronicle in Firefox. Even using a non-Pi-Hole DNS server shows significant loading delays compared to Safari. This, at least, makes it painful instead of frustrating. As an aside, I am resentful that I’m paying $12 per month for a website that wants to inject the scummiest of Taboola-level ads on me.

In the UIView documentation, Apple describes alignment rects:

The constraint-based layout system uses alignment rectangles to align views, rather than their frame. This allows custom views to be aligned based on the location of their content while still having a frame that encompasses any ornamentation they need to draw around their content, such as shadows or reflections.

At first glance, this feature feels unnecessary: views can draw outside their bounds seemingly without performance issues¹. However, the differentiation between frame and alignment is a powerful, and easily overlooked, feature in Auto Layout.

Automatic with constraints

Views that use Auto Layout for positioning and sizing get alignment rect support for free via alignmentRectInsets. Unfortunately, going by the documentation, this is not evident².

Let’s work through this using an example. The vertical line is going down the exact center of the container:

This view has a label and decorative yellow box to the side. Notice that we’re centering relative to the label, and not to the decorative box. This is accomplished with a very small amount of code:

override var alignmentRectInsets: UIEdgeInsets {
  return UIEdgeInsets(top: 0, left: 0, bottom: 0, right: 10)
}

The constraints within the view can completely ignore this fact. With the insets set, the layoutMarginGuide and direct leading, trailing, etc., anchors are automatically inset. This is also true for constraints created via NSLayoutConstraint.

The entirety of the positioning for the view above looks like this:

label.translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false
NSLayoutConstraint.activate([
  label.leadingAnchor.constraint(equalTo: layoutMarginsGuide.leadingAnchor),
  label.trailingAnchor.constraint(equalTo: layoutMarginsGuide.trailingAnchor),
  label.topAnchor.constraint(equalTo: layoutMarginsGuide.topAnchor),
  label.bottomAnchor.constraint(equalTo: layoutMarginsGuide.bottomAnchor)
])

// alignmentRectInsets doesn't support RTL,
// so use left/right rather than leading/trailing
yellowBox.translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false
NSLayoutConstraint.activate([
  yellowBox.topAnchor.constraint(equalTo: topAnchor),
  yellowBox.bottomAnchor.constraint(equalTo: bottomAnchor),
  yellowBox.leftAnchor.constraint(equalTo: rightAnchor),
  yellowBox.widthAnchor.constraint(equalToConstant: alignmentRectInsets.right)
])

We can now apply whole-view effects, like the border in the example above, without having to create elaborate view hierarchies. The decoration is part of the view, not floating outside of it.

The only downside here is that alignmentRectInsets does not use the new NSDirectionalEdgeInsets introduced in iOS 11, so right-to-left support may need to look at effectiveUserInterfaceLayoutDirection.

Tappability

Apple recommends 44pt tappable areas for controls which are often designed to be aligned with other elements on the screen, often times closer than this tappable region.

To combat this problem, a common solution is overriding hitTest(_:with:) on the button to allowing it to tapped outside of its frame. This makes it hard to visualize where a screen is tappable when debugging the view.

Let’s solve this problem using alignment rects. A custom UIControl subclass can use the regular insets like the view example above. Unfortunately, UIButton does not use Auto Layout internally, so a small subclass is needed to handle the insets:

class IncreasedTappableButton: UIButton {
  // one potential optimization is to calculate insets that would
  // make the button >= 44.0 pt tall/wide
  override var alignmentRectInsets: UIEdgeInsets {
    return UIEdgeInsets(top: 10, left: 10, bottom: 10, right: 10)
  }

  override var intrinsicContentSize: CGSize {
    var size = super.intrinsicContentSize
    size.width += alignmentRectInsets.left + alignmentRectInsets.right
    size.height += alignmentRectInsets.top + alignmentRectInsets.bottom
    return size
  }

  private var boundsInsetByAlignmentRect: CGRect {
    return UIEdgeInsetsInsetRect(bounds, alignmentRectInsets)
  }

  override func backgroundRect(forBounds bounds: CGRect) -> CGRect {
    return super.backgroundRect(forBounds: boundsInsetByAlignmentRect)
  }

  override func imageRect(forContentRect contentRect: CGRect) -> CGRect {
    return super.imageRect(forContentRect: boundsInsetByAlignmentRect)
  }

  override func titleRect(forContentRect contentRect: CGRect) -> CGRect {
    return super.titleRect(forContentRect: boundsInsetByAlignmentRect)
  }
}

This gives us a button where the frame is slightly bigger, but things are positioned relative to the original size:

It is worth pointing out that this will not work inside a UIStackView since the larger frame will extend outside the bounds of its container and UIStackView is fairly aggressive about ignoring outside touches.

If outside views are opaque and do not cause blending or offscreen rendering, it does not appear there are any additional costs to having subviews drawing outside bounds.

There are two different uses for the shadowPath property on CALayer:

1. Improving the performance of having a shadow
2. Creating shadows that don’t match the contents of the view. Check out Apple’s Using Shadow Path for Special Effects.

For performance reasons, always set a shadowPath. This is a substantial improvement, especially if the view changes position via animation or presence in a scroll view.

When you can set a path

The shadowPath tells the system what should be casting a shadow without having to look at the contents of the view itself. Since most views that need a shadow are opaque, we just need to describe the appearance of the background of the view.

Using the convenience initializers on UIBezierPath we can create ovals, squares and rounded rectangles without difficulty. For more complicated paths, check out A Primer on Bézier Curves. You can still use UIBezierPath or CGPath to create them, but it will require more complicated math.

Starting with a simple, purple view with a shadow:

let purpleView = UIView()
purpleView.backgroundColor = .purple
purpleView.layer.shadowRadius = 10.0
purpleView.layer.shadowColor = UIColor.black.cgColor
purpleView.layer.shadowOffset = CGSize()
purpleView.layer.shadowOpacity = 0.8

We can tell the system to draw a shadow for the entire square:

purpleView.layer.shadowPath = UIBezierPath(rect: purpleView.bounds).cgPath

For rounded corners, we can set the cornerRadius property on the layer, and create a matching shadowPath:

purpleView.layer.cornerRadius = 16.0
purpleView.layer.shadowPath = UIBezierPath(roundedRect: view.bounds, cornerRadius: 16.0).cgPath

When you can’t set a path

Sometimes it’s not possible to set a path because there’s no easy way to describe the contents of the view. For example, text is a mess of random contents. Rasterizing the layer avoids having to draw the shadow repeatedly.

// create our label
let label = UILabel()
label.textColor = .purple
label.text = NSLocalizedString("Swift Lemma!", comment: "")
label.layer.shadowOpacity = 0.6
label.layer.shadowColor = UIColor.black.cgColor
label.layer.shadowOffset = CGSize(width: 0, height: 2)

// render and cache the layer
label.layer.shouldRasterize = true
// make sure the cache is retina (the default is 1.0)
label.layer.rasterizationScale = UIScreen.main.scale

This produces a view that looks like this:

Keep in mind

Always set the shadowPath inside either layoutSubviews() or viewDidLayoutSubviews(). Since Auto Layout likely means there aren’t constant sizes for views, setting a shadowPath elsewhere may become outdated or incorrect.

When creating a path, the coordinate system for the path is the layer it’s applied to. To make it easier, pretend the shadow path is a subview. For this reason, we use the bounds of the view to create its shadow path.

The UIStackView property isLayoutMarginsRelativeArrangement allows insets similar to margin constraints on subviews in a UIView.

Let’s consider a simple single-subview example:

let containedView = UIView()
containedView.backgroundColor = .purple

let stackView = UIStackView()
stackView.addArrangedSubview(containedView)

You can then configure directionalLayoutMargins and enable them like so:

stackView.directionalLayoutMargins = NSDirectionalEdgeInsets(
    top: 8,
    leading: 8,
    bottom: 8,
    trailing: 8
)
stackView.isLayoutMarginsRelativeArrangement = true

This is what it looks like, before and after:

I’ve been thinking about switching over my website and email to one of the new top-level domains. This has lead me to investigating what the switch would feel like, and how stable the move would be.

Will it survive?

I am looking at the .engineer gTLD now owned by Donuts. At the time of writing this, there are a total of 2706 registered domains since late 2014. That’s nothing.

That got me thinking: what exactly happens when a gTLD fails?

The answers aren’t clear. When applying, ICANN requires registrars put up cash in the form of a bond to cover operational costs for 3 years. If a registrar were to fail, another can propose to take over. Their database is stored off-site, and data can be migrated.

But what if nobody does? What happens to a gTLD if there’s not enough domains to stay in business? The answer, it seems, is that the domain ends. There’s no provisions at ICANN to maintain domains beyond the transfer procedure.

Donuts, for what it’s worth, has stated they would not shut any down:

We think of all the TLDs as one big registry. It[’]s profitable, so all our TLDs are profitable, but that is beside the point. We’d no more shut down one of our TLDs than you would shut down 100 “unprofitable” second-level names in .link.

There’s definitely risk, and that’s not what the internet needs. It should be that, regardless of the fate of any registrar, a domain you purchase today will be valid as long as you renew it.

As an email

Generic top-level domains have been available for registration since 2013, but there’s a number of services that can’t handle them. I’m surprised how many times I enter one into an email field and see “invalid address” as the result.

The responses I’ve received are generally the “doing it wrong” variety and not the “I’ve filed an issue and we’ll look into it.” I’m not sure what I expected to be honest; I hoped that it would be passed up the food chain, but it always dies in the first round of support.

This means, to use a gTLD, I need to keep a backup domain for services like AT&T, CBS, Virgin Airlines, and Crunchyroll. I expected that in 2017 it wouldn’t be a problem, and for the most part it isn’t an issue. It’s frustrating though.

Premium domains

New.net tried replacing ICANN’s authority in the past, long before gTLDs existed. They offered some snazzy options, and I grabbed zac.tech to play around. It didn’t work on most ISPs, but it did work on mine.

That’s a valid gTLD now! I could register it again! For the low, low cost of $2800. Per year.

This notion of a premium domain name is a money-grab by registrars. What constitutes a “premium” domain is arbitrary: length, dictionary words, prettiness, etc. If you try to register one of these domains at NearlyFreeSpeech you get a perfectly correct error:

This means the registry of this gTLD plans to extort extra money from anyone who wants this domain.

It is, and they do. These premium prices may come down. Perhaps they’ll stop charging extra to renew them entirely. But when your registry has a few thousand total domains are premium bottlenecks the right way to go about this?

The future?

I’m worried that entire namespaces are being taken by companies for their internal use, like Google seems to be doing with .dev. If you’ve got the cash, you can take complete, even dictatorial, ownership. That’s not how existing domains worked, but it’s the rules we’re living under with ICANN’s leadership.

But we can’t continue to have one namespace. We’ve been in a world where everything but .com was wrong, and Verisign’s control over it has been harsh. These new top-level domains are nicer looking and there’s significantly more availability.

So I’m thinking about switching. There’s a lot to choose from, and more opening up every day. I’m on a ccTLD right now, and there’s a real risk that it could go away at any time through local laws or disputes. Remember when every startup was using Libya’s .ly domain?

Generic top-level domains feel like an improvement for the internet as a whole. The cruft at the end doesn’t have to be cruft; it can be descriptive, it can be helpful, and above all it can be nice.