I'm curious about the way that in the past it was implemented and I want to get information about how can I implement a character set of my own.
ASCII (American Standard Code for Information Interchange) was the "original" characterset, and remains the basis for most text data. ASCII is actually a 7-bit code (the numeric values range from 0 to 127) with the most significant bit of a byte indicating if the rest of the byte refers to ASCII (if zero) or the current Codepage.
Extra (non-ascii) characters were then added to these codepages, and the user's computer would load a specific codepage to use. Unfortunately this meant that you needed to load the correct codepage before viewing a file or the wrong characters would appear.
We have now moved on, and most systems use Unicode which is a variable character length (rather than the single-byte characters used previously) which can contain thousands upon thousands of characters, allowing for a single encoding to cater for what would have been multiple codepages using the ASCII+Codepage method of old.
That's the brief history; As to how to create your own characterset, I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve - You can create your own fonts, but if you're talking about an actual characterset (i.e. characters that do not already exist) then you'll have to get your characterset added to a standard such as Unicode so that other computers can make use of your new characters, which would be a considerable amount of work (and I have no idea how you'd even go about it) -- It's worth considering, however, that almost every character in existence already exists in Unicode so you may want to review what's already been done before you try and take on a mammoth undertaking such as creating an entirely new characterset.
Related
I have a name input field in an app and would like to prevent users from entering emojis. My idea is to filter for any characters from the general categories "Cs" and "So" in the Unicode specification, as this would prevent the bulk of inappropriate characters but allow most characters for writing natural language.
But after reading the spec, I'm not sure if this would preclude, for example, a Pinyin keyboard from submitting Chinese characters that need supplemental code points. (My understanding is still rough.)
Would excluding surrogates still leave most Chinese users with the characters they need to enter their names, or is the original Unicode space not big enough for that to be a reasonable expectation?
Your method would be both ineffective and too excessive.
Not all emoji are outside of the Basic Multilingual Plane (and thus don’t require surrogates in the first place), and not all emoji belong to the general category So. Filtering out only these two groups of characters would leave the following emoji intact:
#️⃣ *️⃣ 0️⃣ 1️⃣ 2️⃣ 3️⃣ 4️⃣ 5️⃣ 6️⃣ 7️⃣ 8️⃣ 9️⃣ ‼️ ⁉️ ℹ️ ↔️ ◼️ ◻️ ◾️ ◽️ ⤴️ ⤵️ 〰️ 〽️
At the same time, this approach would also exclude about 79,000 (and counting) non-emoji characters covering several dozen scripts – many of them historic, but some with active user communities. The majority of all Han (Chinese) characters for instance are encoded outside the BMP. While most of these are of scholarly interest only, you will need to support them regardless especially when you are dealing with personal names. You can never know how uncommon your users’ names might be.
This whole ordeal also hinges on the technical details of your app. Removing surrogates would only work if the framework you are using encodes strings in a format that actually employs surrogates (i.e. UTF-16) and if your framework is simultaneously not aware of how UTF-16 really works (as Java or JavaScript are, for example). Surrogates are never treated as actual characters; they are exceptionally reserved codepoints that exist for the sole purpose of allowing UTF-16 to deal with characters in the higher planes. Other Unicode encodings aren’t even allowed to use them at all.
If your app is written in a language that either uses a different encoding like UTF-8 or is smart enough to process surrogates correctly, then removing Cs characters on input is never going to have any effect because no individual surrogates are ever being exposed to your program. How these characters are entered by the user does not matter because all your app gets to see is the finished product (the actual character codepoints).
If your goal is to remove all emoji and only emoji, then you will have to put a lot of effort into designing your code because the Unicode emoji spec is incredibly convoluted. Most emoji nowadays are constructed out of multiple characters, not all of which are categorised as emoji by themselves. There is no easy way to filter out just emoji from a string other than maintaining an explicit list of every single official emoji which would need to be steadily updated.
Will precluding surrogate code points also impede entering Chinese characters? […] if this would preclude, for example, a Pinyin keyboard from submitting Chinese characters that need supplemental code points.
You cannot intercept how characters are entered, whether via input method editor, copy-paste or dozens of other possibilities. You only get to see a character when it is completed (and an IME's work is done), or depending on the widget toolkit, even only after the text has been submitted. That leaves you with validation. Let's consider a realistic case. From Unihan_Readings.txt 12.0.0 (2018-11-09):
U+20009 ‹𠀉› (the same as U+4E18 丘) a hill; elder; empty; a name
U+22218 ‹𢈘› variant of 鹿 U+9E7F, a deer; surname
U+22489 ‹𢒉› a surname
U+224B9 ‹𢒹› surname
U+25874 ‹𥡴› surname
Assume the user enters 𠀉, then your unnamed – but hopefully Unicode compliant – programming language must consider the text on the grapheme level (1 grapheme cluster) or character level (1 character), not the code unit level (surrogate pair 0xD840 0xDC09). That means that it is okay to exclude characters with the Cs property.
🔖
I am not sure whether everyone can see the above character, but I can see it. I got it when I input "booknote" in Chinese on my iPhone. To my surprise, this character seems "platform-insensative", it can be seen on my phones, chrome on laptop, and even in MacOS terminal.
Is it an ASCII character? I've never seen colorful characters like this before. Since when these have been around? And where I can get a list of similar characters?
Here: http://www.unicode.org/charts/nameslist/index.html
You put the character on an HTML page. All characters on an HTML page are from the Unicode character set. Characters that are not in the Unicode character set either soon will be or are too specialized to be of general use.
The Unicode Consortium occasionally publishes a new version of the character set. Since you ask about the kind of character, the common partitions of the character set are blocks, categories, and—stretching a bit—which version the character was added in. Some characters are in a script (for a language writing system), some are not. You see the block and category of 🔖 at http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/1f516/index.htm.
The Unicode character set is published in text files called the Unicode Character Database (UCD), as well as many supplementary documents and webpages. The data includes important information about usage and relationships. For example, for applicable characters, which character is considered the uppercase form of another in a particular language.
To see any character, you have to use a font that presents it. This can be a problem for some characters. There is probably no one font that presents every Unicode character as it was meant to be.
You mentioned ASCII. Although it used every day in HTTP headers and other specialized and historical applications, ASCII is such a limited character set that it hasn't generally been used in decades.
I have built a set of scripts, part of which transform XML documents from one vocabulary to a subset of the document in another vocabulary.
For reasons that are opaque to me, but apparently non-negotiable, the target platform (Java-based) requires the output document to have 'encoding="UTF-8"' in the XML declaration, but some special characters within text nodes must be encoded with their hex unicode value - e.g. '”' must be replaced with '”' and so forth. I have not been able to acquire a definitive list of which chars must be encoded, but it does not appear to be as simple as "all non-ASCII".
Currently, I have a horrid mess of VBScript using ADODB to directly check each line of the output file after processing, and replace characters where necessary. This is painfully slow, and unsurprisingly some characters get missed (and are consequently nuked by the target platform).
While I could waste time "refining" the VBScript, the long-term aim is to get rid of that entirely, and I'm sure there must be a faster and more accurate way of achieving this, ideally within the XSLT stage itself.
Can anyone suggest any fruitful avenues of investigation?
(edit: I'm not convinced that character maps are the answer - I've looked at them before, and unless I'm mistaken, since my input could conceivably contain any unicode character, I would need to have a map containing all of them except the ones I don't want encoded...)
<xsl:output encoding="us-ascii"/>
Tells the serialiser that it has to produce ASCII-compatible output. That should force it to produce character references for all non-ASCII characters in text content and attribute values. (Should there be non-ASCII in other places like tag or attribute names, serialisation will fail.)
Well with XSLT 2.0 you have tagged your post with you can use a character map, see http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt20/#character-maps.
I have to write some code working with character encoding. Is there a good introduction to the subject to get me started?
First posted at What every developer should know about character encoding.
If you write code that touches a text file, you probably need this.
Lets start off with two key items
1.Unicode does not solve this issue for us (yet).
2.Every text file is encoded. There is no such thing as an unencoded file or a "general" encoding.
And lets add a codacil to this – most Americans can get by without having to take this in to account – most of the time. Because the characters for the first 127 bytes in the vast majority of encoding schemes map to the same set of characters (more accurately called glyphs). And because we only use A-Z without any other characters, accents, etc. – we're good to go. But the second you use those same assumptions in an HTML or XML file that has characters outside the first 127 – then the trouble starts.
The computer industry started with diskspace and memory at a premium. Anyone who suggested using 2 bytes for each character instead of one would have been laughed at. In fact we're lucky that the byte worked best as 8 bits or we might have had fewer than 256 bits for each character. There of course were numerous charactersets (or codepages) developed early on. But we ended up with most everyone using a standard set of codepages where the first 127 bytes were identical on all and the second were unique to each set. There were sets for America/Western Europe, Central Europe, Russia, etc.
And then for Asia, because 256 characters were not enough, some of the range 128 – 255 had what was called DBCS (double byte character sets). For each value of a first byte (in these higher ranges), the second byte then identified one of 256 characters. This gave a total of 128 * 256 additional characters. It was a hack, but it kept memory use to a minimum. Chinese, Japanese, and Korean each have their own DBCS codepage.
And for awhile this worked well. Operating systems, applications, etc. mostly were set to use a specified code page. But then the internet came along. A website in America using an XML file from Greece to display data to a user browsing in Russia, where each is entering data based on their country – that broke the paradigm.
Fast forward to today. The two file formats where we can explain this the best, and where everyone trips over it, is HTML and XML. Every HTML and XML file can optionally have the character encoding set in it's header metadata. If it's not set, then most programs assume it is UTF-8, but that is not a standard and not universally followed. If the encoding is not specified and the program reading the file guess wrong – the file will be misread.
Point 1 – Never treat specifying the encoding as optional when writing a file. Always write it to the file. Always. Even if you are willing to swear that the file will never have characters out of the range 1 – 127.
Now lets' look at UTF-8 because as the standard and the way it works, it gets people into a lot of trouble. UTF-8 was popular for two reasons. First it matched the standard codepages for the first 127 characters and so most existing HTML and XML would match it. Second, it was designed to use as few bytes as possible which mattered a lot back when it was designed and many people were still using dial-up modems.
UTF-8 borrowed from the DBCS designs from the Asian codepages. The first 128 bytes are all single byte representations of characters. Then for the next most common set, it uses a block in the second 128 bytes to be a double byte sequence giving us more characters. But wait, there's more. For the less common there's a first byte which leads to a sersies of second bytes. Those then each lead to a third byte and those three bytes define the character. This goes up to 6 byte sequences. Using the MBCS (multi-byte character set) you can write the equivilent of every unicode character. And assuming what you are writing is not a list of seldom used Chinese characters, do it in fewer bytes.
But here is what everyone trips over – they have an HTML or XML file, it works fine, and they open it up in a text editor. They then add a character that in their text editor, using the codepage for their region, insert a character like ß and save the file. Of course it must be correct – their text editor shows it correctly. But feed it to any program that reads according to the encoding and that is now the first character fo a 2 byte sequence. You either get a different character or if the second byte is not a legal value for that first byte – an error.
Point 2 – Always create HTML and XML in a program that writes it out correctly using the encode. If you must create with a text editor, then view the final file in a browser.
Now, what about when the code you are writing will read or write a file? We are not talking binary/data files where you write it out in your own format, but files that are considered text files. Java, .NET, etc all have character encoders. The purpose of these encoders is to translate between a sequence of bytes (the file) and the characters they represent. Lets take what is actually a very difficlut example – your source code, be it C#, Java, etc. These are still by and large "plain old text files" with no encoding hints. So how do programs handle them? Many assume they use the local code page. Many others assume that all characters will be in the range 0 – 127 and will choke on anything else.
Here's a key point about these text files – every program is still using an encoding. It may not be setting it in code, but by definition an encoding is being used.
Point 3 – Always set the encoding when you read and write text files. Not just for HTML & XML, but even for files like source code. It's fine if you set it to use the default codepage, but set the encoding.
Point 4 – Use the most complete encoder possible. You can write your own XML as a text file encoded for UTF-8. But if you write it using an XML encoder, then it will include the encoding in the meta data and you can't get it wrong. (it also adds the endian preamble to the file.)
Ok, you're reading & writing files correctly but what about inside your code. What there? This is where it's easy – unicode. That's what those encoders created in the Java & .NET runtime are designed to do. You read in and get unicode. You write unicode and get an encoded file. That's why the char type is 16 bits and is a unique core type that is for characters. This you probably have right because languages today don't give you much choice in the matter.
Point 5 – (For developers on languages that have been around awhile) – Always use unicode internally. In C++ this is called wide chars (or something similar). Don't get clever to save a couple of bytes, memory is cheap and you have more important things to do.
Wrapping it up
I think there are two key items to keep in mind here. First, make sure you are taking the encoding in to account on text files. Second, this is actually all very easy and straightforward. People rarely screw up how to use an encoding, it's when they ignore the issue that they get in to trouble.
From Joel Spolsky
The Absolute Minimum Every Software Developer Absolutely, Positively Must Know About Unicode and Character Sets (No Excuses!)
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Unicode.html
As usual, Wikipedia is a good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_encoding
I have a very basic introduction on my blog, which also includes links to in-depth resources if you REALLY want to dig into the subject matter.
http://www.dotnetnoob.com/2011/12/introduction-to-character-encoding.html
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