I know that UTF-16 is a self-synchronizing encoding scheme. I also read the below Wiki, but did not quite get it.
Self Synchronizing Code
Can you please explain me with an example of UTF-16?
In UTF-16 characters outside of the BMP are represented using a surrogate pair in with the first code unit (CU) lies between 0xD800—0xDBFF and the second one between 0xDC00—0xDFFF. Each of the CU represents 10 bits of the code point. Characters in the BMP is encoded as itself.
Now the synchronization is easy. Given the position of any arbitrary code unit:
If the code unit is in the 0xD800—0xDBFF range, it's the first code unit of two, just read the next one and decode. Voilà, we have a full character outside of BMP
If the code unit is in the 0xDC00—0xDFFF range, it's the second code unit of two, just go back one unit to read the first part, or advance to the next unit to skip the current character
If it's in neither of those ranges then it's a character in BMP. We don't need to do anything more
In UTF-16 CU is the unit, i.e. the smallest element. We work at the CU level and read the CU one-by-one instead of byte-by-byte. Because of that along with historical reasons UTF-16 is only self-synchronizable at CU level.
The point of self-synchronization is to know whether we're in the middle of something immediately instead of having to read again from the start and check. UTF-16 allows us to do that
Since the ranges for the high surrogates, low surrogates, and valid BMP characters are disjoint, it is not possible for a surrogate to match a BMP character, or for (parts of) two adjacent characters to look like a legal surrogate pair. This simplifies searches a great deal. It also means that UTF-16 is self-synchronizing on 16-bit words: whether a code unit starts a character can be determined without examining earlier code units. UTF-8 shares these advantages, but many earlier multi-byte encoding schemes (such as Shift JIS and other Asian multi-byte encodings) did not allow unambiguous searching and could only be synchronized by re-parsing from the start of the string (UTF-16 is not self-synchronizing if one byte is lost or if traversal starts at a random byte).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-16#Description
Of course that means UTF-16 may be not suitable for working over a medium without error correction/detection like a bare network environment. However in a proper local environment it's a lot better than working without self-synchronization. For example in DOS/V for Japanese every time you press Backspace you must iterate from the start to know which character was deleted because in the awful Shift-JIS encoding there's no way to know how long the character before the cursor is without a length map
Related
I am writing a parser, and the original spec states:
The file header ends with the control sequence Ctrl-Z
They do not specify which encode the header is written in (could be latin1, utf8, windows-1252,...), so I wonder whether the sequence the same number in every language.
It appears to be the case, that it always correspond to decimal 26 or the hexa 1A
It would be good to know in a more general way, whether this is for all sequences.
Most likely, ASCII is assumed. For/if ASCII, especially if you say "Ctrl-Z" corresponds to binary representation/"codepoint" dec 26 hex 1A, this would be the SUB (substitute) sequence.
Other alternatives of the extended character sets/encodings wouldn't apply here, because if dec 26 in ASCII, it's within the first/lower 7 bits of the byte (dec 0-126 of 255 total). The 8th bit then was used to toggle all the previous codepoints/patterns once more and gain/use the other half, the other remaining 127 codepoints from dec 128-255. The idea here is that the extended character sets usually share/retain the lower ASCII codepoints/mappings (also for backward compatibility), but introduce their own special characters in the higher codepoint bit-patterns/range 128-255. And there's then many different ones of this type, trying to support more writing scripts of the world with such custom extended code sets. Like Windows-1252 which is an European mix, ISO-8859-1 for German, ISO-8859-15 which is identical but only adds the Euro currency symbol, code page 437 for IBM DOS shapes to use characters for drawing a TUI on the console (this, for example, has a different mapping at it's code points for what is the control sequences in ASCII), and so on. The problem obviously is, there's a lot of these:
each only gains 128 more characters
you can't combine/load/apply any two of them at the same time (if characters would be needed from multiple different code sets)
each application has to know (or be told) beforehand in which code set a file was saved in order to interpret/display/map the correct character rendering/symbols on the screen for these byte patterns, and if the user or a tool/app applies and saves the wrong code set to save its character renderings while not recognizing that, because the source was previously created/saved with a different code set, some characters didn't appear with the intended original renderings, now the file is "corrupt" because some bytes were stored under the assumption they would be rendered with code set A and some under the assumption they're for code set B, and can't apply both as there's also no mechanism in these flat dumb plain-text files on some old, memory-short DOS file systems to tell which part of a file is for which code-set, the characters can never be rendered correctly and it can be difficult work or impossible to retroactively guess + repair what the desired interpretation/rendering was for the binary pattern in a byte
no hope to get anywhere with only 127 more characters added on top of ASCII when it comes to Chinese etc.
So then the improvement was to not use the 8th bit for these stupid code pages, but instead use it as a marker that, if set, it's an indication that another byte is following (UTF-8), hence expanding the amount of code-points greatly. This can even be repeated with the next, subsequent byte. But, it's optional. If the character is within the 7-bit ASCII codepoints, then UTF-8 does not need to set the 8th bit and add another byte.
Also means, the extended code pages and UTF-8 cannot be mixed (used/applied at the same time). For many/most code pages and for UTF-8/UTF-16 as well, the character-onto-codepoint (latter is the bit pattern) mappings are identical to ASCII. If your characters are within the first/lower 7 bits of the byte, it does not matter what the encoding theoretically would be, as the 8th bit is not used for any of code pages or UTF-8. It only matters a great deal if/for characters that do have the 8th bit set/used (and usually if there's bytes like that, the choice of its encoding would usually then then for the entire file, just that some bytes may stay within the single-byte ASCII, but really should take great care at inserting/interpreting binary patterns that have the 8th bit set in a byte).
Easy rule is: if all bytes (or the byte in question) don't have the 8th bit set, it only matters whether the lower 7 bits are ASCII or not. EBCDIC for example is a non-ASCII alternative, where dec 26 hex 1A is UBS (unit backspace), while it also does have a SUB (substitute) but it's on codepoint (binary pattern) dec 63 hex 3F. Other encodings may not have ASCII's SUB at all, or something similar but with a slightly different meaning/use, or maybe ASCII has it's SUB from EBCDIC, etc. But there's no need to wonder/worry about UTF-8, as it does not apply if ASCII can be assumed, for the characters as encoded in ASCII are encoded identically UTF-8 as a single byte with the highest bit not set.
Maybe it can be determined from the spec if all the characters mentioned are within the ASCII range and according to the ASCII codepoint definitions, or if there's other characters that might only be found in UTF-8 (or UTF-16 or UTF-32) or in one of the old extended code pages (but not found in others), or if there's any indication that the encoding might not be ASCII/ASCII-based.
It's obviously problematic if a spec doesn't explicitly state the encoding it's implicitly assuming, if the spec is about a format, protocol or data representation. On the other hand, maybe the Ctrl-Z is misleading, because dec 26 hex 1A is always the same, no matter what the encoding could be if it were text/characters. Maybe the spec just uses this pattern as a construct with no meaning in terms of character display whatsoever, and is introducing only it's own particular local meaning as defined within the spec.
I read some article about Unicode and UTF-8.
The Unicode standard describes how characters are represented by code points. A code point is an integer value, usually denoted in base 16. In the standard, a code point is written using the notation U+12CA to mean the character with value 0x12ca (4,810 decimal). The Unicode standard contains a lot of tables listing characters and their corresponding code points:
Strictly, these definitions imply that it’s meaningless to say ‘this is character U+12CA‘. U+12CA is a code point, which represents some particular character; in this case, it represents the character ‘ETHIOPIC SYLLABLE WI’. In informal contexts, this distinction between code points and characters will sometimes be forgotten.
To summarize the previous section: a Unicode string is a sequence of code points, which are numbers from 0 through 0x10FFFF (1,114,111 decimal). This sequence needs to be represented as a set of bytes (meaning, values from 0 through 255) in memory. The rules for translating a Unicode string into a sequence of bytes are called an encoding.
I wonder why we have to encode U+12CA to UTF-8 or UTF-16 instead of saving the binary of 12CA in the disk directly. I think the reason is:
Unicode is not Self-synchronizing code, so if
10 represent A
110 represent B
10110 represent C
When I see 10110 in the disk we can't tell it's A and B or just C.
Unicode uses much more space instead of UTF-8 or UTF-16.
Am I right?
Read about Unicode, UTF-8 and the UTF-8 everywhere website.
There are more than a million Unicode code-points (you mentionned 1,114,111...). So you need at least 21 bits to be able to separate all of them (since 221 > 1114111).
So you can store Unicode characters directly, if you represent each of them by a wide enough integral type. In practice, that type would be some 32 bits integer (because it is not convenient to handle 3-bytes i.e. 24 bits integers). This is called UCS-4 and some systems or software do already handle their Unicode string in such a format.
Notice also that displaying Unicode strings is quite difficult, because of the variety of human languages (and also since Unicode has combining characters). Some need to be displayed right to left (Arabic, Hebrew, ....), others left to right (English, French, Spanish, German, Russian ...), and some top to down (Chinese, ...). A library displaying Unicode strings should be capable of displaying a string containing English, Chinese and Arabic words.... Then you see that decoding UTF-8 is the easy part of Unicode string displaying (and storing UCS-4 strings won't help much).
But, since English is the dominant language in IT technology (for economical reasons), it is very often cheaper to keep strings in UTF8 form. If most of the strings handled by your system are English (or in some other European language using the Latin alphabet), it is cheaper and it takes less space to keep them in UTF-8.
I guess than when China will become a dominant power in IT, things might change (or maybe not).
(I have no idea of the most common encoding used today on Chinese supercomputers or smartphones; I guess it is still UTF-8)
In practice, use a library (perhaps libunistring or Glib in C), to process UTF-8 strings and another one (e.g. pango and GTK in C) to display them. You'll find many Unicode related libraries in various programming languages.
I wonder why we have to encode U+12CA to UTF-8 or UTF-16 instead of saving the binary of 12CA in the disk directly.
How do you write 12CA to a disk directly? It is a bigger value than a byte can hold, so you need to write at least two bytes. Do you write 12 followed by CA? You just encoded it in UTF-16BE. That's what an encoding is...a definition of how to write an abstract number as bytes.
Other reading:
The Absolute Minimum Every Software Developer Absolutely, Positively Must Know About Unicode and Character Sets (No Excuses!)
Pragmatic Unicode
For good and specific reasons, Unicode doesn't specify any particular encoding. If it makes sense for your scenario, you can specify your own.
Because Unicode doesn't specify any serialization, there is no way to "directly" store Unicode, just like you can't "directly" store a mathematical number or a flow chart to implement a program you designed. The question isn't really well-defined.
There are a number of existing serialization formats (encodings) so it is very likely that it makes the most sense to use an existing one unless your requirements are significantly different than what any existing encoding provides; even then, is it really worth the cost?
A stream of bits is just a stream of bits. Conventionally, we chop them up into groups of 8 and call that a "byte" and the latter half of your question is really "if it's not a byte, how can you tell which bits belong to which symbol?" There are many ways to do that, but the common ones generally define a sequence of some particular length (8, 16, and 32 are often convenient for reasons of compatibility with bus width on modern computers etc) but again, if you really wanted to, you could come up with something different. Huffman trees come to mind as one way to implement a way to communicate a structure of variable length (and is used for precisely that in many compression algorithms).
Consider one situation, even if you can directly save unicode binary into disk and close the file, what happens when you open the file again? It's just a bunch of binary, you don't know how many bytes a char occupied right, which means, if '🥶'(U+129398) and 'A' are the content of your file, then if you take it 1 byte for a char, then '🥶' can't be decoded correctly, which takes 2 bytes, then instead 1 emoji you see, you get two, which is U+63862 and U+65536 unicode char.
I was reading a few questions on SO about Unicode and there were some comments I didn't fully understand, like this one:
Dean Harding: UTF-8 is a
variable-length encoding, which is
more complex to process than a
fixed-length encoding. Also, see my
comments on Gumbo's answer: basically,
combining characters exist in all
encodings (UTF-8, UTF-16 & UTF-32) and
they require special handling. You can
use the same special handling that you
use for combining characters to also
handle surrogate pairs in UTF-16, so
for the most part you can ignore
surrogates and treat UTF-16 just like
a fixed encoding.
I've a little confused by the last part ("for the most part"). If UTF-16 is treated as fixed 16-bit encoding, what issues could this cause? What are the chances that there are characters outside of the BMP? If there are, what issues could this cause if you'd assumed two-byte characters?
I read the Wikipedia info on Surrogates but it didn't really make things any clearer to me!
Edit: I guess what I really mean is "Why would anyone suggest treating UTF-16 as fixed encoding when it seems bogus?"
Edit2:
I found another comment in "Is there any reason to prefer UTF-16 over UTF-8?" which I think explains this a little better:
Andrew Russell: For performance:
UTF-8 is much harder to decode than
UTF-16. In UTF-16 characters are
either a Basic Multilingual Plane
character (2 bytes) or a Surrogate
Pair (4 bytes). UTF-8 characters can
be anywhere between 1 and 4 bytes
This suggests the point being made was that UTF-16 would not have any three-byte characters, so by assuming 16bits, you wouldn't "totally screw up" by ending up one-byte off. But I'm still not convinced this is any different to assuming UTF-8 is single-byte characters!
UTF-16 includes all "base plane" characters. The BMP covers most of the current writing systems, and includes many older characters that one can practically encounter. Take a look at them and decide whether you really are going to encounter any characters from the extended planes: cuneiform, alchemical symbols, etc. Few people will really miss them.
If you still encounter characters that require extended planes, these are encoded by two code points (surrogates), and you'll see two empty squares or question marks instead of such a non-character. UTF is self-synchronizing, so a part of a surrogate character never looks like a legitimate character. This allows things like string searches to work even if surrogates are present and you don't handle them.
Thus issues arising from treating UTF-16 as effectively USC-2 are minimal, aside from the fact that you don't handle the extended characters.
EDIT: Unicode uses 'combining marks' that render at the space of previous character, like accents, tilde, circumflex, etc. Sometimes a combination of a diacritic mark with a letter can be represented as a distinct code point, e.g. á can be represented as a single \u00e1 instead of a plain 'a' + accent which are \u0061\u0301. Still you can't represent unusual combinations like z̃ as one code point. This makes search and splitting algorithms a bit more complex. If you somehow make your string data uniform (e.g. only using plain letters and combining marks), search and splitting become simple again, but anyway you lose the 'one position is one character' property. A symmetrical problem happens if you're seriously into typesetting and want to explicitly store ligatures like fi or ffl where one code point corresponds to 2 or 3 characters. This is not a UTF issue, it's an issue of Unicode in general, AFAICT.
It is important to understand that even UTF-32 is fixed-length when it comes to code points, not characters. There are many characters that are composed from multiple code points, and therefore you can't really have a Unicode encoding where one number (code unit) corresponds to one character (as perceived by users).
To answer your question - the most obvious issue with treating UTF-16 as fixed-length encoding form would be to break a string in a middle of a surrogate pair so you get two invalid code points. It all really depends what you are doing with the text.
I guess what I really mean is
"Why would anyone suggest treating
UTF-16 as fixed encoding when it seems
bogus?"
Two words: Backwards compatibility.
Unicode was originally intended to use a fixed-width 16-bit encoding (UCS-2), which is why early adopters of Unicode (e.g., Sun with Java and Microsoft with Windows NT), used a 16-bit character type. When it turned out that 65,536 characters wasn't enough for everyone, UTF-16 was developed in order to allow this 16-bit character systems to represent the 16 new "planes".
This meant that characters were no longer fixed-width, so people created the rationalization that "that's OK because UTF-16 is almost fixed width."
But I'm still not convinced this is
any different to assuming UTF-8 is
single-byte characters!
Strictly speaking, it's not any different. You'll get incorrect results for things like "\uD801\uDC00".lower().
However, assuming UTF-16 is fixed width is less likely to break than assuming UTF-8 is fixed-width. Non-ASCII characters are very common in languages other than English, but non-BMP characters are very rare.
You can use the same special handling
that you use for combining characters
to also handle surrogate pairs in
UTF-16
I don't know what he's talking about. Combining sequences, whose constituent characters have an individual identity, are nothing at all like surrogate characters, which are only meaningful in pairs.
In particular, the characters within a combining sequence can be converted to a different encoding form one characters at a time.
>>> 'a'.encode('UTF-8') + '\u0301'.encode('UTF-8')
b'a\xcc\x81'
But not surrogates:
>>> '\uD801'.encode('UTF-8') + '\uDC00'.encode('UTF-8')
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
UnicodeEncodeError: 'utf-8' codec can't encode character '\ud801' in position 0: surrogates not allowed
UTF-16 is a variable-length encoding. The older UCS-2 is not. If you treat a variable-length encoding like fixed (constant length) you risk introducing error whenever you use "number of 16-bit numbers" to mean "number of characters", since the number of characters might actually be less than the number of 16-bit quantities.
The Unicode standard has changed several times along the way. For example, UCS-2 is not a valid encoding anymore. It has been deprecated for a while now.
As mentioned by user 9000, even in UTF-32, you have sequences of characters that are interdependent. The à is a good example, although this character can be canonicalized to \x00E1. So you can make it simple.
Unicode, even when using the UTF-32 encoding, supports up to 30 code points, one after the other, to represent the most complex characters. (The existing characters do not use that many, I think the longest in existence is currently 17 if I'm correct.)
For that reason, Unicode developed Normalization Forms. It actually considers five different forms:
Unnormalized -- a sequence you create manually, for example; text editors are expected to save properly normalized (NFC) code sequences
NFD -- Normalization Form Decomposition
NFKD -- Normalization Form Compatibility Decomposition
NFC -- Normalization Form Canonical Composition
NFKC -- Normalization Form Compatibility Canonical Composition
Although in most situations it does not matter much because long compositions are rare, even in languages that use them.
And in most cases, your code already deals with canonical compositions. However, if you create strings manually in your code, you are not unlikely to create an unnormalized string (assuming you use such long forms).
Properly implemented servers on the Internet are expected to refused strings that are not canonical compositions as per Unicode. Long forms are also forbidden over connections. For example, the UTF-8 encoding technically allows for ASCII characters to be encoded using 1, 2, 3, or 4 bytes (and the old encoding allowed up to 6 bytes!) but those encoding are not permitted.
Any comment on the Internet that contradicts the Unicode Normalization Form document is simply incorrect.
Trying to rephrase: Can you map every combining character combination into one code point?
I'm new to Unicode, but it seems to me that there is no encoding, normalization or representation where one character would be one code point in every case in Unicode. Is this correct?
Is this true for Basic Multilingual Plane also?
If you mean one char == one number (ie: where every char is represented by the same number of bytes/words/what-have-you): in UCS-4, each character is represented by a 4-byte number. That's way more than big enough for every character to be represented by a single value, but it's quite wasteful if you don't need any of the higher chars.
If you mean the compatibility sequences (ie: where e + ´ => é): there are single-character representations for most of the combinations in use in existing modern languages. If you're making up your own language, you could run into problems...but if you're sticking to the ones that people actually use, you'll be fine.
Can you map every combining character
combination into one code point?
Every combining character combination? How would your proposed encoding represent the string "à̴̵̶̷̸̡̢̧̨̛̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̣̤̥̦̩̪̫̬̭̮̯̰̱̲̳̹̺̻̼͇͈͉͍͎́̂̃̄̅̆̇̈̉̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̽̾̿̀́͂̓̈́͆͊͋͌̕̚ͅ͏͓͔͕͖͙͚͐͑͒͗͛ͣͤͥͦͧͨͩͪͫͬͭͮͯ͘͜͟͢͝͞͠͡"? (an 'a' with more than a hundred combining marks attached to it?) It's just not practical.
There are, however, a lot of "precomposed" characters in Unicode, like áçñü. Normalization form C will use these instead of the decomposed version whenever possible.
it seems to me that there is no encoding, normalization or representation where one character would be one code point in every case in Unicode. Is this correct?
Depends on the meaning of the meaning of the word “character.” Unicode has the concepts of abstract character (definition 7 in chapter 3 of the standard: “A unit of information used for the organization, control, or representation of textual data”) and encoded character (definition 11: “An association (or mapping) between an abstract character and a code point”). So a character never is a code point, but for many code points, there exists an abstract character that maps to the code point, this mapping being called “encoded character.” But (definition 11, paragraph 4): “A single abstract character may also be represented by a sequence of code points”
Is this true for Basic Multilingual Plane also?
There is no conceptual difference related to abstract or encoded characters between the BMP and the other planes. The statement above holds for all subsets of the codespace.
Depending on your application, you have to distinguish between the terms glyph, grapheme cluster, grapheme, abstract character, encoded character, code point, scalar value, code unit and byte. All of these concepts are different, and there is no simple mapping between them. In particular, there is almost never a one-to-one mapping between these entities.
I have several files that are in several different languages. I thought they were all encoded UTF-8, but now I'm not so sure. Some characters look fine, some do not. Is there a way that I can break out the strings and try to identify the character sets? Perhaps split on white space then identify each word? Finally, is there an easy way to translate characters from one set to UTF-8?
If you don't know the character set for sure You can only guess, basically. utf8::valid might help you with that, but you can't really know for sure. If you know that if it isn't unicode it must be a specific character set (Like Latin-1), you lucky. If you have no idea, you're screwed. In any case, you should always assume the whole file is in the same character set, unless otherwise specified. You will lose your sanity if you don't.
As for your question how to convert between character sets: Encode is there to do that for you
Determining whether a file is probably UTF-8 or not should be pretty easy. Determining the encoding if it is not UTF-8 would be very difficult in general.
If the file is encoded with UTF-8, the high bits of each byte should follow a pattern. If a character is one byte, its high bit will be cleared (zero). Otherwise, an n byte character (where n is 2–4) will have the high n bits of the first byte set to one, followed by a single zero bit. The following n - 1 bytes should all have the highest bit set and the second-highest bit cleared.
If all the bytes in your file follow these rules, it's probably encoded with UTF-8. I say probably, because anyone can invent a new encoding that happens to follow the same rules, deliberately or by chance, but interprets the codes differently.
Note that a file encoded with US-ASCII will follow these rules, but the high bit of every byte is zero. It's okay to treat such a file as UTF-8, since they are compatible in this range. Otherwise, it's some other encoding, and there's not an inherent test to distinguish the encoding. You'll have to use some contextual knowledge to guess.
Take a look at iconv
http://www.gnu.org/software/libiconv/
Text::Iconv