Say we have a file that is Latin-1 encoded and that we use a text editor to read in that file into memory. My questions are then:
How will those character strings be represented in memory? Latin-1, UTF-8, UTF-16 or something else?
What determines how those strings are represented in memory? Is it the application, the programming language the application was written in, the OS or the hardware?
As a follow-up question:
How do applications then save files to encoding schemes that use different character sets? F.e. converting UTF-8 to UTF-16 seems fairly intuitive to me as I assume you just decode to the Unicode codepoint, then encode to the target encoding. But what about going from UTF-8 to Shift-JIS which has a different character set?
Operating system
Windows
1993: Windows adopted Unicode 1.0 with NT 3.1 - back then Unicode was what is nowadays known as UCS-2. That Windows version also introduced NTFS (New Technology File System), which also stores every filename in UCS-2 like manner (16 bit codepoints).
2000: With NT 5.0 (aka Windows 2000) there was a shift/improvement from UCS-2 to UTF-16 - both OS and encoding became available in this year.
Since then nothing has changed. Internally, Windows uses 16 bit codepoints for almost 30 years already, and thanks to UTF-16 also newest codepoints such as Emojis are supported. Its API works the same way, with compatibility functions for byte-wise encodings merely being stubs that convert the input to UTF-16. See also
What unicode encoding (UTF-8, UTF-16, other) does Windows use for its Unicode data types?
"Windows uses UTF-16 as its internal encoding", what exactly does this mean?
Why does Windows use UTF-16LE?
Is it safe to assume all Windows platforms will be in UCS-2 LE
Unix: most distributions use UTF-8 by default, because it's most backward compatible while being future proof enough.
Programming language
Depends on their age or on their compiler: while languages themselves are not necessarily bound to an OS the compiler which produces the binaries might treat things differently as per OS.
Pascal: based in 1970 the String was just an array of bytes, not even necessarily meaning text. And for text ASCII or one of the other single-byte encodings could easily be dealt with.
Delphi: adopted as per Windows WideString, dealing with 16 bit per character, to perfectly make use of the WinAPI and its Unicode support. Later additions also emerged the UTF8String, which works with bytes again, but not necessarily only one byte per character. But also creations such as UCS4String are available since 2009, eating 4 bytes per character.
Free Pascal: stays with the old String but always defaults to UTF-8 encoding. While this always needs conversion when using the WinAPI it is also more platform independent. Several other String (compatibilty) types also exist, each with different memory usage.
ECMAScript (JavaScript): as per standard an engine should use UTF-16 for texts. See also JavaScript strings - UTF-16 vs UCS-2?
Java: engines must support a minimum of encodings, including UTF-16, thus internal String handling/memory usage may differ. See also What is the Java's internal represention for String? Modified UTF-8? UTF-16?
Application/program
Depends on the platform/OS. While the in-memory consumption of text is strongly influenced by the programming language compiler and the data types used there, using libraries (which could have been produced by entirely other compilers and programming languages) can mix this.
Strictly speaking the binary file format also has its strict encodings: on Windows the PE (used in EXE, DLL, etc.) has resource Strings in 16 bit characters again. So while f.e. the Free Pascal Compiler can (as per language) make heavy use of UTF-8 it will still build an EXE file with UTF-16 metadata in it.
Programs that deal with text (such as editors) will most likely hold any encoding "as is" in memory for the sake of performance, surely with compromises such as temporarily duplicating parts into Strings of 32 bit per character, just to quickly search through it, let alone supporting Unicode normalization.
Conversion
The most common approach is to use a common denominator:
Either every input is decoded into 32 bit characters which are then encoded into the target. Costs the most memory, but makes it easy to deal with.
In the WinAPI you either convert to UTF-16 via MultiByteToWideChar(), or from UTF-16 via WideCharToMultiByte(). To go from UTF-8 to Shift-JIS you'd make a sidestep from UTF-8 to UTF-16, then from UTF-16 to Shift-JIS. Support for all the encodings shift as per version and localized installation, there's not really a guarantee for all of them.
External libraries specialized on encodings alone can do this, like iconv - these support many encodings unbound to the OS support.
Related
I believe Windows currently defaults to UTF-16 for “Unicode”, but that this may not be the case in the future.
For this reason, would it be better to use
[System.Text.Encoding]::UTF8.GetString($someByteArray)
instead of the following?:
[System.Text.Encoding]::Unicode.GetString($someByteArray)
this may not be the case in the future.
Unicode isn't a potentially-variable encoding; it's just Microsoft's (sadly misleading) name for UTF-16LE.
It isn't going to change. Even if Microsoft moved towards implementing Windows APIs natively in UTF-8 or UTF-32 (something there's no sign of ever happening), System.Text.Encoding.Unicode would have to remain UTF-16LE as that is how it is defined by the .NET specification.
would it be better to use UTF8 instead of Unicode?
Use UTF8 if the byte array contains UTF-8-encoded bytes, and use Unicode if they are in UTF-16LE.
If you get to choose what encoding is used to store data at rest, UTF-8 is usually the better choice for space efficiency reasons.
First, yes Windows defaults to UTF-16. Personally I would use UTF-8, because most of the applications I write have to communicate with Linux applications or some form of http so UTF-8 is more likely.
Besides even if all your code is used with Microsoft systems it's easy to convert to UTF-8 and a simple substitute regular expression could change everything over to Unicode (UTF-16) if .NET started requiring it.
does any signifigant interchange take place in formats other than ascii/utf8? are there any fields where utf16xx and utf32xx are used heavily? i ask as a writer of multiple libraries that work on unicode text, and the burden of supporting all five major variants is quite high compared to the perceived utility.
Windows and Java both treat Unicode as UTF-16 internally, and Python uses UTF-16 or UTF-32 depending on the platform. So more than just UTF-8 is important for these. These are just the cases I'm most familiar with, I'm sure there are others.
So, in my opinion, if you have a Unicode library, you should support UTF-16 and UTF-32. (I can't believe UTF-32 is too difficult, since there's no special processing involved besides byte ordering. Although, I'm not a Unicode library author :) )
One important point is XML: it can come in pretty much any encoding imaginable, but UTF-8 is by far the most common.
However, the XML spec says this:
All XML processors must accept the UTF-8 and UTF-16 encodings of Unicode
So if your application/library handles XML in any way it must support UTF-16 at least in that portion. Note that a conforming parser that converts the data to UTF-8 for processing would be enough here.
When it comes to interchange, I guess you are right that UTF-8 is prevalent. Some cases of using UTF-16 are various binary protocols such as DCOM, Java RMI and (maybe???) CORBA.
As for UTF-32 I've never heard of a case where it is used for interchange.
This question already has answers here:
What is the difference between UTF-8 and Unicode?
(18 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
Consider:
Is it true that unicode=utf16?
Many are saying Unicode is a standard, not an encoding, but most editors support save as Unicode encoding actually.
As Rasmus states in his article "The difference between UTF-8 and Unicode?":
If asked the question, "What is the difference between UTF-8 and
Unicode?", would you confidently reply with a short and precise
answer? In these days of internationalization all developers should be
able to do that. I suspect many of us do not understand these concepts
as well as we should. If you feel you belong to this group, you should
read this ultra short introduction to character sets and encodings.
Actually, comparing UTF-8 and Unicode is like comparing apples and
oranges:
UTF-8 is an encoding - Unicode is a character
set
A character set is a list of characters with unique numbers (these
numbers are sometimes referred to as "code points"). For example, in
the Unicode character set, the number for A is 41.
An encoding on the other hand, is an algorithm that translates a
list of numbers to binary so it can be stored on disk. For example
UTF-8 would translate the number sequence 1, 2, 3, 4 like this:
00000001 00000010 00000011 00000100
Our data is now translated into binary and can now be saved to
disk.
All together now
Say an application reads the following from the disk:
1101000 1100101 1101100 1101100 1101111
The app knows this data represent a Unicode string encoded with
UTF-8 and must show this as text to the user. First step, is to
convert the binary data to numbers. The app uses the UTF-8 algorithm
to decode the data. In this case, the decoder returns this:
104 101 108 108 111
Since the app knows this is a Unicode string, it can assume each
number represents a character. We use the Unicode character set to
translate each number to a corresponding character. The resulting
string is "hello".
Conclusion
So when somebody asks you "What is the difference between UTF-8 and
Unicode?", you can now confidently answer short and precise:
UTF-8 (Unicode Transformation Format) and Unicode cannot be compared. UTF-8 is an encoding
used to translate numbers into binary data. Unicode is a character set
used to translate characters into numbers.
most editors support save as ‘Unicode’ encoding actually.
This is an unfortunate misnaming perpetrated by Windows.
Because Windows uses UTF-16LE encoding internally as the memory storage format for Unicode strings, it considers this to be the natural encoding of Unicode text. In the Windows world, there are ANSI strings (the system codepage on the current machine, subject to total unportability) and there are Unicode strings (stored internally as UTF-16LE).
This was all devised in the early days of Unicode, before we realised that UCS-2 wasn't enough, and before UTF-8 was invented. This is why Windows's support for UTF-8 is all-round poor.
This misguided naming scheme became part of the user interface. A text editor that uses Windows's encoding support to provide a range of encodings will automatically and inappropriately describe UTF-16LE as “Unicode”, and UTF-16BE, if provided, as “Unicode big-endian”.
(Other editors that do encodings themselves, like Notepad++, don't have this problem.)
If it makes you feel any better about it, ‘ANSI’ strings aren't based on any ANSI standard, either.
It's not that simple.
UTF-16 is a 16-bit, variable-width encoding. Simply calling something "Unicode" is ambiguous, since "Unicode" refers to an entire set of standards for character encoding. Unicode is not an encoding!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode#Unicode_Transformation_Format_and_Universal_Character_Set
and of course, the obligatory Joel On Software - The Absolute Minimum Every Software Developer Absolutely, Positively Must Know About Unicode and Character Sets (No Excuses!) link.
There's a lot of misunderstanding being displayed here. Unicode isn't an encoding, but the Unicode standard is devoted primarily to encoding anyway.
ISO 10646 is the international character set you (probably) care about. It defines a mapping between a set of named characters (e.g., "Latin Capital Letter A" or "Greek small letter alpha") and a set of code points (a number assigned to each -- for example, 61 hexadecimal and 3B1 hexadecimal for those two respectively; for Unicode code points, the standard notation would be U+0061 and U+03B1).
At one time, Unicode defined its own character set, more or less as a competitor to ISO 10646. That was a 16-bit character set, but it was not UTF-16; it was known as UCS-2. It included a rather controversial technique to try to keep the number of necessary characters to a minimum (Han Unification -- basically treating Chinese, Japanese and Korean characters that were quite a bit alike as being the same character).
Since then, the Unicode consortium has tacitly admitted that that wasn't going to work, and now concentrate primarily on ways to encode the ISO 10646 character set. The primary methods are UTF-8, UTF-16 and UCS-4 (aka UTF-32). Those (except for UTF-8) also have LE (little endian) and BE (big-endian) variants.
By itself, "Unicode" could refer to almost any of the above (though we can probably eliminate the others that it shows explicitly, such as UTF-8). Unqualified use of "Unicode" probably happens the most often on Windows, where it will almost certainly refer to UTF-16. Early versions of Windows NT adopted Unicode when UCS-2 was current. After UCS-2 was declared obsolete (around Win2k, if memory serves), they switched to UTF-16, which is the most similar to UCS-2 (in fact, it's identical for characters in the "basic multilingual plane", which covers a lot, including all the characters for most Western European languages).
UTF-16 and UTF-8 are both encodings of Unicode. They are both Unicode; one is not more Unicode than the other.
Don't let an unfortunate historical artifact from Microsoft confuse you.
The development of Unicode was aimed
at creating a new standard for mapping
the characters in a great majority of
languages that are being used today,
along with other characters that are
not that essential but might be
necessary for creating the text. UTF-8
is only one of the many ways that you
can encode the files because there are
many ways you can encode the
characters inside a file into Unicode.
Source:
http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-unicode-and-utf-8/
In addition to Trufa's comment, Unicode explicitly isn't UTF-16. When they were first looking into Unicode, it was speculated that a 16-bit integer might be enough to store any code, but in practice that turned out not to be the case. However, UTF-16 is another valid encoding of Unicode - alongside the 8-bit and 32-bit variants - and I believe is the encoding that Microsoft use in memory at runtime on the NT-derived operating systems.
Let's start from keeping in mind that data is stored as bytes; Unicode is a character set where characters are mapped to code points (unique integers), and we need something to translate these code points data into bytes. That's where UTF-8 comes in so called encoding – simple!
It's weird. Unicode is a standard, not an encoding. As it is possible to specify the endianness I guess it's effectively UTF-16 or maybe 32.
Where does this menu provide from?
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I want to know why any developer would need to use an encoding other than UTF-8.
Wikipedia lists advantages and disadvantages of UTF-8 as compared to a variety of other encodings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8#Advantages_and_disadvantages
The most important disadvantages are IMHO that UTF-8 might use significantly more space especially in Asian languages such as Chinese, Japanese or Hindi and that not all code points have the same size which makes measurements more difficult and many string operations such as search inefficient.
Well, some do it because their tools are archaic or flawed. Some do it because they don't see a need to support anything other than ASCII. Some do it because they don't know any better.
Those are the usual excuses for not using Unicode.
As for not using UTF-8 specifically there are different reasons. Some systems, like Windows1 (and stemming from that, .NET) and Java came to be in a time where Unicode was a strict 16-bit code. Therefore, there was really only one encoding: UCS-2, encoding code points directly as 16-bit words.
Later Unicode was expanded to 21 bits because 65536 code points weren't enough anymore. This caused encodings such as UTF-32 and UTF-16 to appear. For systems previously working with UCS-2 the transition to UTF-16 was the easiest and most sensible choice. Windows did that transition back in Ye Olde Days of Windows 2000.
So while I think that nearly all application nowadays should support Unicode I don't think it is entirely necessary for them to specifically use UTF-8. There are historic reasons for that and no real benefit in converting existing systems from UTF-16 to UTF-8.
1 NT.
In UTF-8 code points between 0800 and FFFF take up three bytes in UTF-8 but only two in UTF-16. See the wikipedia comparison for more details, but basically if text heavily uses code points in this range (say, if it's Chinese), UTF-8 files will be larger than UTF-16 files with the same content.
UTF-8 is very efficient at encoding plain English text (same as ASCII). If your user base is likely to be mostly, say, Chinese, you will be much better off using UTF-16.
For more information, see The Absolute Minimum Every Software Developer Absolutely, Positively Must Know About Unicode and Character Sets.
Because outside the English-speaking world, people have been using various encodings that predate Unicode and are tailored for their respective languages for decades. These language-specific encodings have become ingrained everywhere and are pretty much a standard. If you want to have any hope of interfacing with legacy systems, you have to use them, so all systems have to support them and usually use them as default even if they by now support UTF-8 as well. There may even be multiple legacy encodings traditionally used for different purposes.
Examples:
ISO-8859-1 in western Europe - actually outdated there as well, as you need ISO-8859-15 for the Euro sign
ISO-2022-JP in Japan for emails, Shift JIS for websites
Big5 in Taiwan
GB2312 in China
The last two examples show that encodings can even be a political issue.
Sometimes they are restricted due to historical/unsupported reasons (I'm developing on Windows using Zend Studio on a Samba share on a Linux box: and something in that mix means I keep reverting to Cp1512 instead of UTF8).
Sometimes you don't need to use UTF-8 (for example when storing a md5 hash in a database: you only need the hexadecimal range 0-9 A-F: why make it a UTF-8 field, which will take at least a byte extra storage instead of normal ASCII).
Sometimes it's just laziness learning the UTF-8 functions for a particular language.
Because they do not know better.
The only valid criticism to utf-8 is that encodings for common Asian languages are oversized from other encodings.
UTF-8 is superior because
It is ASCII compatible. Most known and tried string operations do not need adaptation.
It is Unicode. Anything that isn't Unicode shouldn't even be considered in this day and age. If you have important data in encoding X, spend two minutes on Google and write a conversion function. Even if you have to interface with sourceless legacy app Z, you can run your communications through a pipe so that your logic stays in the 21st century.
UTF-16 isn't fixed length either and assuming it is like many do, will only cause terrible bugs.
Additionally Unicode is very complex and it is almost certain than any fixed-size algorithm adapted from ASCII will yield bad results even in UTF-32.
Say you have this UTF-16 string.
[0][1][2][F|3] [4] [5]
And you want to insert a character with code 8 between [3] and [4]
you would do insert(5,8)
If you don't check for characters outside BMP(serially as in UTF-8 as you cannot know how many double sized characters you have) you get:
[0][1][2][F|8][3][4][5]
Two new garbage characters. So much for your fixed size encoding.
You can of course disallow such characters altogether, but then when your code interfaces with the real world, you might find your program saves the profile for this user who lives in rm -Rf / in .profile instead of [Classical Chinese Proverb].profile.
Or just an angry user that cannot write his thesis on Classical Chinese Proverbs with your software.
One legitimate reason is when you need to deal with legacy documents, software or hardware that are not Unicode compatible.
Another legitimate reason is that you need to use a programming language / libraries that do not support UTF8 / Unicode well ... or at all.
Other answers mention that UTF-16 is more compact than UTF-8 for Asian languages / characters.
And of course there are reasons like short-sightedness, ignorance, laziness ... and deadlines.
Its also worth remembering that in some circumstances (where a non-latin set of characters are needed) UTF-8 can actually bloat larger than the 16 bit Unicode encoding. In those cases ucs-2 or utf-16 would be a better choice.
The reasons for using non-Unicode 8-bit character sets / encodings are all back compatibility of some kind, and/or inertia. For that matter, the most frequent reasons for using UTF-8 are compatibility with standards like XML that mandate or prefer UTF-8.
Differences in the number of bytes you think text will take up in different encodings, especially in storage, are mostly theoretical. In real world situations, compatibility requirements are more important. If compression is used, the size differences go away anyway. Even if compression is not used, total text size is hard to predict and is rarely a deciding factor.
When converting legacy code that used non-Unicode 8-bit encodings, using UTF-16 can be a tool for making sure all code has been converted, because mismatches can be caught as compile-time type errors. Many languages, runtimes and libraries like Javascript, JVM, .NET, ICU use 16-bit strings and UTF-16, even though storage and Internet protocols are usually 8-bit.
Imagine all files to consider are in GB2312 (China mainland standard). Then you might choose GB18030 as Unicode encoding instead. They are compatible the same way as all ASCII is UTF-8. That is useful in China mainland!
You might decide even quicker when you find out that both mentioned GB-standards are required in your IT-product by law (as far as I have heard), if you want to ship in China (mainland).
Another upside is that GB2312, and as such GB18030 as well, are also ASCII compatible.
It is algorithmically not so robust, though. – So if you have no political reasons or any GB2312 legacy, it makes no sense to use it. But if you do, here you got your answer.
Related to the subject, when using MySQL, as if it wasn't complex enough, you get the option the choose which kind of UTF-8 collation you want to use. So what would you use?
UTF-8 general ci
or
UTF-8 unicode ci?
(I tend to use the UTF-8 variant that is used for the database connection)
Because you sometimes want to operate easily on codepoints -- then you'd choose f.e. UCS-2 or UCS-4.
Many APIs require other Unicode encodings - mostly UTF-16. For instance, Java, .NET, Win32.
At my previous employer we used iso-8859-1 for some of our ASP pages to match the collation of our SQL Server, which as you can guess was not Unicode. I wanted to change the collation, but the manager said to wait till we upgrade our SQL Server to do it. Needless to say it never happened - I haven't been with them for a little over a year now, so I don't know if they finally did it.
Unicode certainly is a good place to work from in most cases, but a developer should be familiar with many different types of character encoding. Certainly ASCII might be used if the set of characters is limited.
What if you're a developer and receiving data from a source that doesn't send UTF-8? There could be lots of interface issues if you don't understand your input.
Joel's article on the must-knows for character encoding is good and worth reading.
What is the difference between the Unicode, UTF8, UTF7, UTF16, UTF32, ASCII, and ANSI encodings?
In what way are these helpful for programmers?
Going down your list:
"Unicode" isn't an encoding, although unfortunately, a lot of documentation imprecisely uses it to refer to whichever Unicode encoding that particular system uses by default. On Windows and Java, this often means UTF-16; in many other places, it means UTF-8. Properly, Unicode refers to the abstract character set itself, not to any particular encoding.
UTF-16: 2 bytes per "code unit". This is the native format of strings in .NET, and generally in Windows and Java. Values outside the Basic Multilingual Plane (BMP) are encoded as surrogate pairs. These used to be relatively rarely used, but now many consumer applications will need to be aware of non-BMP characters in order to support emojis.
UTF-8: Variable length encoding, 1-4 bytes per code point. ASCII values are encoded as ASCII using 1 byte.
UTF-7: Usually used for mail encoding. Chances are if you think you need it and you're not doing mail, you're wrong. (That's just my experience of people posting in newsgroups etc - outside mail, it's really not widely used at all.)
UTF-32: Fixed width encoding using 4 bytes per code point. This isn't very efficient, but makes life easier outside the BMP. I have a .NET Utf32String class as part of my MiscUtil library, should you ever want it. (It's not been very thoroughly tested, mind you.)
ASCII: Single byte encoding only using the bottom 7 bits. (Unicode code points 0-127.) No accents etc.
ANSI: There's no one fixed ANSI encoding - there are lots of them. Usually when people say "ANSI" they mean "the default locale/codepage for my system" which is obtained via Encoding.Default, and is often Windows-1252 but can be other locales.
There's more on my Unicode page and tips for debugging Unicode problems.
The other big resource of code is unicode.org which contains more information than you'll ever be able to work your way through - possibly the most useful bit is the code charts.
Some reading to get you started on character encodings: Joel on Software:
The Absolute Minimum Every Software Developer Absolutely, Positively Must Know About Unicode and Character Sets (No Excuses!)
By the way - ASP.NET has nothing to do with it. Encodings are universal.