16-bit encoding that has all bits mapped to some value - unicode

UTF-32 has its last bits zeroed.
As I understand it UTF-16 doesn't use all its bits either.
Is there a 16-bit encoding that has all bit combinations mapped to some value, preferably a subset of UTF, like ASCII for 7-bit?

UTF-32 has its last bits zeroed
This might be not correct, depending on how you count. Typically we count from left, so the high (i.e. first) bits of UTF-32 will be zero
As I understand it UTF-16 doesn't use all its bits either
It's not correct either. UTF-16 uses all of its bits. It's just that the range [0xD800—0xDFFF] is reserved for UTF-16 surrogate pairs so those values will never be assigned any character and will never appear in UTF-32. If you need to encode characters outside the BMP with UTF-16 then those values will be used
In fact Unicode was limited to U+10FFFF just because of UTF-16, even though UTF-8 and UTF-32 themselves are able to represent up to U+7FFFFFFF and U+FFFFFFFF respectively. The use of surrogate pair makes it impossible to encode values larger than 0x10FFFF in UTF-16
See Why Unicode is restricted to 0x10FFFF?
Is there a 16 bit encoding that has all bit combinations mapped to some value, preferably a subset of UTF, like ASCII for 7 bit?
First there's no such thing as "a subset of UTF", since UTF isn't a character set but a way to encode Unicode code points
Prior to the existence of UTF-16 Unicode was a fixed 16-bit character set encoded with UCS-2. So UCS-2 might be the closest you'll get, which encodes only the characters in the BMP. Other fixed 16-bit non-Unicode charsets also has an encoding that maps all of the bit combinations to some characters
However why would you want that? UCS-2 has been deprecated long ago. Some old tools and less experienced programmers still imply that Unicode is always 16-bit long like that which is correct and will break modern text processing
Also note that not all the values below 0xFFFF are assigned, so no encoding can map every 16-bit value to a Unicode code point
Further reading
The Absolute Minimum Every Software Developer Absolutely, Positively Must Know About Unicode and Character Sets (No Excuses!)
What is a "surrogate pair" in Java?

Related

How is a high unicode codepoint expressed as two codepoints?

I've seen that >2 byte unicode codepoints like U+10000 can be written as a pair, like \uD800\uDC00. They seem to start with the nibble d, but that's all I've noticed.
What is that splitting action called and how does it work?
UTF-8 means (using my own words) that the minimum atom of processing is a byte (the code unit is 1-byte long). I don't know if historically, but at least, conceptually spoken, the UCS-2 and UCS-4 Unicode encodings come first, and UTF-8/UTF-16 appear to solve some problems of UCS-*.
UCS-2 means that each character uses 2 bytes instead of one. It's a fixed-length encoding. UCS-2 saves the bytestring of each code point as you say. The problem is there are characters which codepoints require more than 2 bytes to store it. So, UCS-2 only can handle a subset of Unicode (the range U+0000 to U+FFFF of course).
UCS-4 uses 4 bytes for each character instead, and it's capable enough to store the bitstring of any Unicode code point, obviously (the Unicode range is from U+000000 to U+10FFFF).
The problem with UCS-4 is that characters outside the 2-bytes range are very, very uncommon, and any text encoded using UCS-4 will waste too much space. So, using UCS-2 is a better approach, unless you need characters outside the 2-bytes range.
But again, English texts, source code files and so on use mostly ASCII characters and UCS-2 has the same problem: wasting too much space for texts which use mostly ASCII characters (too many useless zeros).
That is what UTF-8 does. Characters inside the ASCII range are saved in UTF-8 texts as-is. It just takes the bitstring of the code point/ASCII value of each character. So, if a UTF-8 encoded text uses only ASCII characters, it is indistinguishable from any other Latin1 encoding. Clients without UTF-8 support can handle UTF-8 texts using only ASCII characters, because they look identical. It's a backward compatible encoding.
From then on (Unicode characters outside the ASCII range), UTF-8 texts use two, three or four bytes to save code points, depending on the character.
I don't know the exact method, but the bitestring is split in two, three or four bytes using known bit prefixes to know the amount of bytes used to save the code point. If a byte begins with 0, means the character is ASCII and uses only 1 byte (the ASCII range is 7-bits long). If it begins with 1, the character is encoded using two, three or four bytes depending on what bit comes next.
The problem with UTF-8 is that it requires too much processing (it must examine the first bits of each character to know its length), specially if the text is not English-like. For example, a text written in Greek will use mostly two-byte characters.
UTF-16 uses two-bytes code units to solve that problem for non-ASCII texts. That means that the atoms of processing are 16-bit words. If a character encoding doesn't fit in a two-byte code unit, then it uses 2 code units (four bytes) to encode the character. That pair of two code units is called a surrogate pair. I think a UTF-16 text using only characters inside the 2-byte range is equivalent to the same text using UCS-2.
UTF-32, in turn, uses 4-bytes code units, as UCS-4 does. I don't know the differences between them though.
The complete picture filling in your confusion is formatted below:
Referencing what I learned from the comments...
U+10000 is a Unicode code point (hexadecimal integer mapped to a character).
Unicode is a one-to-one mapping of code points to characters.
The inclusive range of code points from 0xD800 to 0xDFFF is reserved for UTF-161 (Unicode vs UTF) surrogate units (see below).
\uD800\uDC002 are two such surrogate units, called a surrogate pair. (A surrogate unit is a code unit that's part of a surrogate pair.)
Abstract representation: Code point (abstract character) --> Code unit (abstract UTF-16) --> Code unit (UTF-16 encoded bytes) --> Interpreted UTF-16
Actual usage example: Input data is bytes and may be wrapped in a second encoding, like ASCII for HTML entities and unicode escapes, or anything the parser handles --> Encoding interpreted; mapped to code point via scheme --> Font glyph --> Character on screen
How surrogate pairs work
Surrogate pair advantages:
There are only high and low units. A high must be followed by a low. No confusing high&low units.
UTF-16 can use 2 bytes for the first 63487 code points because surrogates cannot be mistaken for code points.
A range of 2048 code points is (2048/2)**2 to yield a range of 1048576 code points.
The processing is done on the less frequently used characters.
1 UTF-16 is the only UTF which uses surrogate pairs.
2 This is formatted as a unicode escape sequence.
Graphics describing character encoding:
Keep reading:
How does UTF-8 "variable-width encoding" work?
Unicode, UTF, ASCII, ANSI format differences
Code point

Why must unicode use utf-8?

as far I know, the UNICODE is the industry standard for character mapping.
What I don't get is that why it has to be encoded via UTF-8 and not directly as Unicode?
Say the letter "a", why can't it be just stored as a String with "U+0061" as the value, and must be stored as octal 0061?
do i make any sense?
Who says it must be encoded as UTF-8? There are several common encodings for Unicode, including UTF-16 (big- or little-endian), and some less common ones such as UTF-7 and UTF-32.
Unicode itself is not an encoding; it's merely a specification of numeric code points for several thousand characters.
The Unicode code point for lowercase a is 0x61 in hexadecimal, 97 in decimal, or 0141 in octal.
If you're suggesting that 'a' should be encoded as the 6-character ASCII string "U+0061", that would be terribly wasteful of space and more difficult to decode than UTF-8.
If you're suggesting storing the numeric values directly, that's what UTF-32 does: it stores each character as a 32-bit (4-octet) number that directly represents the code point. The trouble with that is that it's nearly as wasteful of space as "U+0061" (4 bytes per character vs. 6.)
The UTF-8 encoding has a number of advantages. One is that it's upward compatible with ASCII. Another is that it's reasonably efficient even for non-ASCII characters, as long as most of the encoded text is within the first few thousand code points.
UTF-16 has some other advantages, but I personally prefer UTF-8. MS Windows tends to use UTF-16, but mostly for historical reasons; Windows added Unicode support when there were fewer than 65536 defined code points, which made UTF-16 equvalent to UCS-2, which is a simpler representation.
UTF-8 is only one 'memory format' of Unicode. There is also UTF-16, UTF-32 and a number of other memory mapping formats.
UTF-8 has been used broadly because it is upwardly compatible with an 8 bit character code like Ascii.
You can tell a browser via html, mySQL at several levels, and Notepad++ vie encoding option to use other formats for the data they operate on.
DuckDuckGo or Google Unicode and you will find plenty of articles on this on the internet. Here is one: https://ssl.icu-project.org/docs/papers/forms_of_unicode/
Say the letter "a", why can't it be just stored as a String with "U+0061" as the value
Stored data is a sequence of byte values, generally interpreted at the lowest level as numbers. We usually use bytes that can be one of 256 values, so we look at them as numbers in the range 0 to 255.
So when you say 'just stored as a String with "U+0061"' what sequence of numbers in the range 0-255 do you mean?
Unicode code points like U+0061 are written in hexadecimal. Hexadecimal 61 is the number 97 in the more familiar decimal system, so perhaps you think that the letter 'a' should be stored as a single byte with the value 97. You might be surprised to learn that this is exactly how the encoding UTF-8 represents this string.
Of course there are more than 256 characters defined in Unicode, so not all Unicode characters can be stored as bytes with the same value as their Unicode codepoint. UTF-8 has one way of dealing with this, and there are other encodings with different ways.
UTF-32, for example, is an encoding which uses 4 bytes together at a time to represent a codepoint. Since one byte has 256 values four bytes can have 256 × 256 × 256 × 256, or 4,294,967,296 different arrangements. We can number those arrangements of bytes from 0 to 4,294,967,295 and then store every Unicode codepoint as the arrangement of bytes that we've numbered with the number corresponding to the Unicode codepoint value. This is exactly what UTF-32 does.
(However, there are different ways to assign numbers to those arrangements of four bytes and so there are multiple versions of UTF-32, such as UTF-32BE and UTF-32LE. Typically a particular medium of storing or transmitting bytes specifies its own numbering scheme, and the encoding 'UTF-32' without further qualification implies that whatever the medium's native scheme is should be used.)
Read this article:
The Absolute Minimum Every Software Developer Absolutely, Positively Must Know About Unicode and Character Sets (No Excuses!)
do i make any sense?
Not a lot! (Read on ...)
as far I know, the UNICODE (sic) is the industry standard for character mapping.
That is incorrect. Unicode IS NOT a standard for character mapping. It is a standard that defines a set of character codes and what they mean.
It is essentially a catalogue that defines a mapping of codes (Unicode "code points") to conceptual characters, but it is not a standard for mapping characters. It certainly DOES NOT define a standard way to represent the code points; i.e. a mapping to a representation. (That is what character encoding schemes do!)
What I don't get is that why it has to be encoded via UTF-8 and not directly as Unicode?
That is incorrect. Character data DOES NOT have to be encoded in UTF-8. It can be encoded as UTF-8. But it can also be encoded in a number of other ways too:
The Unicode has specified a number of encoding schemes, including UTF-8, UTF-16 and UTF-32, and various historical variants.
There are many other standard encoding schemes (probably hundreds of them). This Wikipedia page lists some of the common ones.
The various different encoding schemes have different purposes (and different limitations). For example:
ASCII and LATIN-1 are 7 and 8-bit character sets (respectively) that encode a small subset of Unicode code-points. (ASCII encodes roman letters and numbers, some punctuation, and "control codes". LATIN-1 adds a number of accented latin letters using in Western Europe and some other common "typographical" characters.)
UTF-8 is a variable length encoding scheme that encodes Unicode code points as 1 to 5 bytes (octets). (It is biased towards western usage ... since it encodes all latin / roman letters and numbers as single bytes.)
UTF-16 is designed for encoding Unicode code points in 16-bit units. (Java Strings are essentially UTF-16 encoded.)
Say the letter "a", why can't it be just stored as a String with "U+0061" as the value, and must be stored as octal 0061?
In fact, a Java String is represented as a sequence of char values. The char type is a 16-bit unsigned integer type; i.e. it has values 0 through 65535. And the char value that represents a lowercase "a" character is hex 0061 == octal 141 == decimal 97.
You are incorrect about "octal 0061" ... but I can't figure out what distinction you are actually trying to make here, so I can't really comment on that.

Naming convention for less than utf32

Unicode UTF-32 values we can call codepoints, though I suppose even this is wrong since a single surrogate is itself a codepoint. UTF-8 can be called multi-byte or multi-octet. But what about UTF-16 and UCS-2. They aren't exactly multi-byte since they deal in 2 bytes, and I think multi-word is more of a MS naming scheme.
What is a more accurate name to describe UTF-32 codepoints that can be made up of bytes, as in UTF-8 and words as in UTF-16?
I believe the term you're looking for is 'code unit'.
Code points are simply integral values that may be assigned a character in a character set.
A code unit is a fixed width integer representation used in sequences to represent encoded text. UTF-8, UTF-16, and UTF-32 are all encodings, and use 8, 16, and 32 bit code units respectively.
UTF-32 is unique among the three in that its code unit values are always exactly the code point values of the represented Unicode data.
'multi-byte' can appropriately be used to in reference to UTF-16. (And 'Unicode' can be used in reference to UTF-8; Microsoft's usage of the terminology is misleading on both counts.)
a single surrogate is itself a codepoint.
Unicode classifies code point in the range [U+D800-U+DFFF] as surrogates. These code points are never used as such, however. They are reserved and cannot be used because UTF-16 cannot represent code points in this range; in order to represent such code points UTF-16 would use code units in the range [0xD800-0xDFFF], however UTF-16 uses code unit values in this range to represent code points above U+FFFF and therefore cannot use them to represent code points in the range [U+D800-U+DFFF].

Unicode code point limit

As explained here, All unicode encodings end at largest code point 10FFFF But I've heard differently that
they can go upto 6 bytes, is it true?
UTF-8 underwent some changes during its life, and there are many specifications (most of which are outdated now) which standardized UTF-8. Most of the changes were introduced to help compatibility with UTF-16 and to allow for the ever-growing amount of codepoints.
To make the long story short, UTF-8 was originally specified to allow codepoints with up to 31 bits (or 6 bytes). But with RFC3629, this was reduced to 4 bytes max. to be more compatible to UTF-16.
Wikipedia has some more information. The specification of the Universal Character Set is closely linked to the history of Unicode and its transformation format (UTF).
See the answers to Do UTF-8,UTF-16, and UTF-32 Unicode encodings differ in the number of characters they can store?
UTF-8 and UTF-32 are theoretically capable of representing characters above U+10FFFF, but were artificially restricted to match UTF-16's capacity.
The largest unicode codepoint and the encodings for unicode characters used, are two things. According to the standard, the highest codepoint really is 0x10ffff but herefore you'll need just 21 bits which fit easily into 4 bytes, even with 11 bits wasted!
I guess with your question about 6 bytes you mean a 6-byte utf-8 sequence, right? As others have answered already, using the utf-8 mechanism you could really deal with 6-byte sequences, you can even deal with 7-byte sequences and even with an 8-byte sequence. The 7-byte sequence gives you a range of just what the following bytes have to offer, 6 x 6 bits = 36 bits and a 8-byte sequence gives you 7 x 6 bits = 42 bits. You could deal with it but it is not allowed because unneeded, the highest codepoint is 0x10ffff.
It is also forbidden to use longer sequences than needed as Hibou57 has mentioned. With utf-8 one must always use the shortest sequence possible or the sequence will be treated as invalid! An ASCII character must be in a 7-bit singlebyte of course. The second thing is that the utf-8 4-byte sequence gives you 3 bits of payload in the startbyte and 18 bits of payload in the following bytes which are 21 bits and that matches to the calculation of surrogates when using the utf-16 encoding. The bias 0x10000 is subtracted from the codepoint and the remaining 20 bits go to the high- as well lo-surrogate payload area, each of 10 bits. The third and last thing is, that within utf-8 it is not allowed to encode hi- or -lo-surrogate values. Surrogates are not characters but containers for them, surrogates can only appear in utf-16, not in utf-8 or utf-32 encoded files.
Indeed, for some view of the UTF‑8 encoding, UTF‑8 may technically permit to encode code‑points beyond the forever‑fixed valid range upper‑limit; so one may encode a code‑point beyond that range, but it will not be a valid code‑point anywhere. On the other hand, you may encode a character with unneeded zeroed high‑order bits, ex. encoding an ASCII code‑point with multiple bits, like in 2#1100_0001#, 2#1000_0001# (using Ada's notation), which would for the ASCII letter A UTF‑8 encoded with two bytes. But then, it may be rejected by some safety/security filters, at this use to be used for hacking and piracy. RFC 3629 has some explanation about it. One should just stick to encode valid code‑points (as defined by Unicode), the safe way (no extraneous bytes).

Are 6 octet UTF-8 sequences valid?

Can UTF-8 encode 5 or 6 byte sequences, allowing all Unicode characters to be encoded? I'm getting conflicting standards. I need to be able to support every Unicode character, not just those in the U+0000..U+10FFFF range.
(All quotes are from RFC 3629)
Section 3:
In UTF-8, characters from the U+0000..U+10FFFF range (the UTF-16
accessible range) are encoded using sequences of 1 to 4 octets. The
only octet of a "sequence" of one has the higher-order bit set to 0,
the remaining 7 bits being used to encode the character number. In a
sequence of n octets, n>1, the initial octet has the n higher-order
bits set to 1, followed by a bit set to 0. The remaining bit(s) of
that octet contain bits from the number of the character to be
encoded. The following octet(s) all have the higher-order bit set to
1 and the following bit set to 0, leaving 6 bits in each to contain
bits from the character to be encoded.
So not all possible characters can be encoded with UTF-8? Does this mean I cannot encode characters from different planes than the BMP?
Section 2:
The octet values C0, C1, F5 to FF never appear.
This means we cannot encode UTF-8 values with 5 or 6 octets (or even some with 4 that aren't within the above range)?
Section 12:
Restricted the range of characters to 0000-10FFFF (the UTF-16
accessible range).
Looking at the previous RFC confirms this...they reduced the range of characters.
Section 10:
Another security issue occurs when encoding to UTF-8: the ISO/IEC
10646 description of UTF-8 allows encoding character numbers up to
U+7FFFFFFF, yielding sequences of up to 6 bytes. There is therefore
a risk of buffer overflow if the range of character numbers is not
explicitly limited to U+10FFFF or if buffer sizing doesn't take into
account the possibility of 5- and 6-byte sequences.
So these sequences are allowed per the ISO/IEC 10646 definition, but not the RFC 3629 definition? Which one should I follow?
Thanks in advance.
They are no Unicode characters beyond 10FFFF, the BMP covers 0000 through FFFF.
UTF-8 is well-defined for 0-10FFFF.
Both UTF-8 and UTF-16 allow all Unicode characters to be encoded. What UTF-8 is not allowed to do is to encode upper and lower surrogate halves (which UTF-16 uses) or values above U+10FFFF, which aren't legal Unicode.
Note that the BMP ends at U+FFFF.
I would have to say no: Unicode code points are valid for the range [0, 0x10FFFF], and those map to 1-4 octets. So, if you did come across a 5- or 6-octet UTF-8 encoded code point, it's not a valid code point - there's certainly nothing assigned there. I am a little baffled as to why they're there in the ISO standard - I couldn't find an explanation.
It does make you wonder, however, if perhaps someday in the future, they would expand past U+10FFFF. 0x10FFFF allows for over a million characters, but there are a lot characters out there, and it would depend how much eventually gets encoded. (For sanity's sake, let's hope not, a million characters is a lot!) UTF-32 could handle more code points, and as you've discovered, UTF-8 could. It'd really be UTF-16 that's out of luck - more surrogate pairs would be needed somewhere in the spectrum of code points.