Related
I cannot understand some key elements of encoding:
Is ASCII only a character or it also has its encoding scheme algorithm ?
Does other windows code pages such as Latin1 have their own encoding algorithm ?
Are UTF7, 8, 16, 32 the only encoding algorithms ?
Does the UTF alghoritms are used only with the UNICODE set ?
Given the ASCII text: Hello World, if I want to convert it into Latin1 or BIG5, which encoding algorithms are being used in this process ? More specifically, does Latin1/Big5 use their own encoding alghoritm or I have to use a UTF alghoritm ?
1: Ascii is just an encoding — a really simple encoding. It's literally just the positive end of a signed byte (0...127) mapped to characters and control codes.
Refer to https://www.ascii.codes/ to see the full set and inspect the characters.
There are definitely encoding algorithms to convert ascii strings to and from strings in other encodings, but there is no compression/decompression algorithm required to write or read ascii strings like there is for utf8 or utf16, if that's what you're implying.
2: LATIN-1 is also not a compressed (usually called 'variable width') encoding, so there's no algorithm needed to get in and out of it.
See https://kb.iu.edu/d/aepu for a nice description of LATIN-1 conceptually and of each character in the set. Like a lot of encodings, its first 128 slots are just ascii. Like ascii, it's 1 byte in size, but it's an unsigned byte, so after the last ascii character (DEL/127), LATIN1 adds another 128 characters.
As with any conversion from one string encoding to another, there is an algorithm specifically tailored to that conversion.
3: Again, unicode encodings are just that — encodings. But they're all compressed except for utf32. So unless you're working with utf32 there is always a compression/decompression step required to write and read them.
Note: When working with utf32 strings there is one nonlinear oddity that has to be accounted for... combining characters. Technically that is yet another type of compression since they save space by not giving a codepoint to every possible combination of uncombined character and combining character. They "precombine" a few, but they would run out of slots very quickly if they did them all.
4: Yes. The compression/decompression algorithms for the compressed unicode encodings are just for those encodings. They would not work for any other encoding.
Think of it like zip/unzip. Unzipping anything other than a zipped file or folder would of course not work. That goes for things that are not compressed in the first place and also things that are compressed but using another compression algorithm (e.g.: rar).
I recently wrote the utf8 and utf16 compression/decompression code for a new cross-platform library being developed, and I can tell you quite confidently if you feed a Big5-encoded string into my method written specifically for decompressing utf8... not only would it not work, it might very well crash.
Re: your "Hello World" question... Refer to my answer to your second question about LATIN-1. No conversion is required to go from ascii to LATIN-1 because the first 128 characters (0...127) of LATIN-1 are ascii. If you're converting from LATIN-1 to ascii, the same is true for the lower half of LATIN-1, but if any of the characters beyond 127 are in the string, it would be what's called a "lossy"/partial conversion or an outright failure, depending on your tolerance level for lossiness. In your example, however, all of the characters in "Hello World" have the exact same values in both encodings, so it would convert perfectly, without loss, in either direction.
I know practically nothing about Big5, but regardless, don't use utf-x algos for other encodings. Each one of those is written very specifically for 1 particular encoding (or in the case of conversion: pair of encodings).
If you're curious about utf8/16 compression/decompression algorithms, the unicode website is where you should start (watch out though. they don't use the compression/decompression metaphor in their documentation):
http://unicode.org
You probably won't need anything else.
... except maybe a decent codepoint lookup tool: https://www.unicode.codes/
You can roll your own code based on the unicode documentation, or use the official unicode library:
http://site.icu-project.org/home
Hope this helps.
In general, most encoding schemes like ASCII or Latin-1 are simply big tables mapping characters to specific byte sequences. There may or may not be some specific algorithm how the creators came up with those specific character⟷byte associations, but there's generally not much more to it than that.
One of the innovations of Unicode specifically is the indirection of assigning each character a unique number first and foremost, and worrying about how to encode that number into bytes secondarily. There are a number of encoding schemes for how to do this, from the UCS and GB 18030 encodings to the most commonly used UTF-8/UTF-16 encodings. Some are largely defunct by now like UCS-2. Each one has their pros and cons in terms of space tradeoffs, ease of processing and transportability (e.g. UTF-7 for safe transport over 7-bit system like email). Unless otherwise noted, they can all encode the full set of current Unicode characters.
To convert from one encoding to another, you pretty much need to map bytes from one table to another. Meaning, if you look at the EBCDIC table and the Windows 1250 table, the characters 0xC1 and 0x41 respectively both seem to represent the same character "A", so when converting between the two encodings, you'd map those bytes as equivalent. Yes, that means there needs to be one such mapping between each possible encoding pair.
Since that is obviously rather laborious, modern converters virtually always go through Unicode as a middleman. This way each encoding only needs to be mapped to the Unicode table, and the conversion can be done with encoding A → Unicode code point → encoding B. In the end you just want to identify which characters look the same/mean the same, and change the byte representation accordingly.
A character encoding is a mapping from a sequence of characters to a sequence of bytes (in the past there were also encodings to a sequence of bits - they are falling out of fashion). Usually this mapping is one-to-one but not necessarily onto. This means there may be byte sequences that don't correspond to a character sequence in this encoding.
The domain of the mapping defines which characters can be encoded.
Now to your questions:
ASCII is both, it defines 128 characters (some of them are control codes) and how they are mapped to the byte values 0 to 127.
Each encoding may define its own set of characters and how they are mapped to bytes
no, there are others as well ASCII, ISO-8859-1, ...
Unicode uses a two step mapping: first the characters are mapped to (relatively) small integers called "code points", then these integers are mapped to a byte sequence. The first part is the same for all UTF encodings, the second step differs. Unicode has the ambition to contain all characters. This means, most characters are in the "UNICODE set".
Every character in the world has been assigned a unicode value [ numbered from 0 to ...]. It is actually an unique value. Now, it depends on an individual that how he wants to use that unicode value. He can even use it directly or can use some known encoding schemes like utf8, utf16 etc. Encoding schemes map that unicode value into some specific bit sequence [ can vary from 1 byte to 4 bytes or may be 8 in future if we get to know about all the languages of universe/aliens/multiverse ] so that it can be uniquely identified in the encoding scheme.
For example ASCII is an encoding scheme which only encodes 128 characters out of all characters. It uses one byte for every character which is equivalent to utf8 representation. GSM7 is one other format which uses 7 bit per character to encode 128 characters from unicode character list.
Utf8:
It uses 1 byte for characters whose unicode value is till 127.
Beyond this it has its own way of representing the unicode values.
Uses 2 byte for Cyrillic then 3 bytes for Hindi characters.
Utf16:
It uses 2 byte for characters whose unicode value is till 127.
and it also uses 2 byte for Cyrillic, Hindi characters.
All the utf encoding schemes fixes initial bits in specific pattern [ eg: 110|restbits] and rest bits [eg: initialbits|11001] takes the unicode value to make a unique representation.
Wikipedia on utf8, utf16, unicode will make it clear.
I coded an utf translator which converts incoming utf8 text across all languages into its equivalent utf16 text.
Unicode is awesome. There aren't too many people who disagree with this.
Apart from Python 3 (which did it wrong), what would be the negative impact (if any) of the next major version of all programming languages defaulting to using Unicode/UTF-8 strings?
I'm talking specifically about the many cases which require workarounds to get UTF-8. For example, running a Java program:
java ... -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8
Or working with strings in Python 2:
# -*- coding: utf8 -*-
...
unicode_string = u"This is Unicode Text"
Certain MySQL databases default to a different character encoding by default:
[server]
collation_server=utf8_unicode_ci
character_set_server=utf8
etc. etc.
Why don't we all just default to using Unicode/UTF-8 and allow users to use the workarounds if they need support for other character encodings? What would be the problems with doing this?
UTF-8 is a variable-length encoding, which is slower to parse than fixed-length encodings. Example: the 7th character of an ASCII string is always the 7th byte. We don't know exactly where the 7th character of a UTF-8 string is in memory without starting from the beginning of the string and parsing the whole thing. For long strings this can be expensive.
So for string operations where finding specific substrings based on character/byte position is important (SQL databases are a great example of this) other encodings can often be preferable.
Additionally, UTF-8 encodes non-english text (outside the ASCII range) as two or more bytes, while a lot of character encodings (koi8-r for Russian, as an example) encode all of the commonly used characters of other languages in a single byte, which is handy for mediums such as email where all the data must be sent over the network.
GB2312 is the primary Chinese character set, which encodes the entire Chinese alphabet in two-byte characters, while all of these characters would be 3 bytes in UTF-8 (50% increase)
UTF-8 is amazing for compatibility, but in terms of how it represents characters in memory, other encodings outcompete it in a lot of scenarios.
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.
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?
It seems the most confusing issue to me.
How is the beginning of a new character recognized?
How are the codepoints allocated?
Let's take Chinese character for example.
What range of codepoints are allocated to them,
and why is it thus allocated,any reason?
EDIT:
Plz describe it in your own words,not by citation.
Or could you recommend a book that talks about Unicode systematically,which you think have made it clear(it's the most important).
The Unicode Consortium is responsible for the codepoint allocation. If you have want a new character or a code page allocated, you can apply there. See the proposal pipeline for examples.
Chapter 2 of the Unicode specification defines the general structure of Unicode, including what ranges are allocated for what kind of characters.
Take a look here for a general overview of Unicode that might be helpful: The Absolute Minimum Every Software Developer Absolutely, Positively Must Know About Unicode and Character Sets (No Excuses)
Unicode is a standard specified by the Unicode Consortium. The specification defines Unicode’s character set, the Universal Character Set (UCS), and some encodings to encode that characters, the Unicode Transformation Formats UTF-7, UTF-8, UTF-16 and UTF-32.
How is the beginning of a new character recognized?
It depends on the encoding that’s been used. UTF-16 and UTF-32 are encodings with fixed code word lengths (16 and 32 bits respectively) while UTF-7 and UTF-8 have a variable code word length (from 8 bits up to 32 bits) depending on the character point that is to be encoded.
How are the codepoints allocated? Let's take Chinese character for example. What range of codepoints are allocated to them, and why is it thus allocated,any reason?
The UCS is separated into so called character planes. The first one is Basic Latin (U+0000–U+007F, encoded like ASCII), the second is Latin-1 Supplement (U+0080–U+00FF, encoded like ISO 8859-1) and so on.
It is better to say Character Encoding instead of Codepage
A Character Encoding is a way to map some character to some data (and also vice-versa!)
As Wikipedia says:
A character encoding system consists of a code that pairs each character from a given repertoire with something else, such as a sequence of natural numbers, octets or electrical pulses, in order to facilitate the transmission of data (generally numbers and/or text) through telecommunication networks or storage of text in computers
Most popular character encodings are ASCII,UTF-16 and UTF-8
ASCII
First code-page that widely used in computers. in ANSI just one byte is allocated for each character. So ANSI could have a very limited set of characters (English letters, Numbers,...)
As I said, ASCII used videly in old operating systems like MS-DOS. But ASCII is not dead and still used. When you have a txt file with 10 characters and it is 10 bytes, you have a ASCII file!
UTF-16
In UTF-16, Two bytes is allocated of a character. So we can have 65536 different characters in UTF-16 !
Microsoft Windows uses UTF-16 internally.
UTF-8
UTF-8 is another popular way for encoding characters. it uses variable-length bytes (1byte to 4bytes) for characters. It is also compatible with ASCII because uses 1byte for ASCII characters.
Most Unix based systems uses UTF-8
Programming languages do not depend on code-pages. Maybe a specific implementation of a programming language do not support codepages (like Turbo C++)
You can use any code-page in modern programming languages. They also have some tools for converting the code-pages.
There is different Unicode versions like Utf-7,Utf-8,... You can read about them here (recommanded!) and maybe for more formal details here