I know that this is probably a stupid question, but I need to be sure on this issue. So I need to know for example if a programming language says that its String type uses UTF-16 encoding, does that mean:
it will use 2 bytes for code points in the range of U+0000 to U+FFFF.
it will use surrogate pairs for code points larger than U+FFFF (4 bytes per code point).
Or does some programming languages use their own "tricks" when encoding and do not follow this standard 100%.
UTF-16 is a specified encoding, so if you "use UTF-16", then you do what it says and don't invent any "tricks" of your own.
I wouldn't talk about "two bytes" the way you do, though. That's a detail. The key part of UTF-16 is that you encode code points as a sequence of 16-bit code units, and pairs of surrogates are used to encode code points greater than 0xFFFF. The fact that one code unit is comprised of two 8-bit bytes is a second layer of detail that applies to many systems (but there are systems with larger byte sizes where this isn't relevant), and in that case you may distinguish big- and little-endian representations.
But looking the other direction, there's absolutely no reason why you should use UTF-16 specifically. Ultimately, Unicode text is just a sequence of numbers (of value up to 221), and it's up to you how to represent and serialize those.
I would happily make the case that UTF-16 is a historic accident that we probably wouldn't have done if we had to redo everything now: It is a variable-length encoding just as UTF-8, so you gain no random access, as opposed to UTF-32, but it is also verbose. It suffers endianness problems, unlike UTF-8. Worst of all, it confuses parts of the Unicode standard with internal representation by using actual code point values for the surrogate pairs.
The only reason (in my opinion) that UTF-16 exists is because at some early point people believed that 16 bit would be enough for all humanity forever, and so UTF-16 was envisaged to be the final solution (like UTF-32 is today). When that turned out not to be true, surrogates and wider ranges were tacked onto UTF-16. Today, you should by and large either use UTF-8 for serialization externally or UTF-32 for efficient access internally. (There may be fringe reasons for preferring maybe UCS-2 for pure Asian text.)
UTF-16 per se is standard. However most languages whose strings are based on 16-bit code units (whether or not they claim to ‘support’ UTF-16) can use any sequence of code units, including invalid surrogates. For example this is typically an acceptable string literal:
"x \uDC00 y \uD800 z"
and usually you only get an error when you attempt to write it to another encoding.
Python's optional encode/decode option surrogateescape uses such invalid surrogates to smuggle tokens representing the single bytes 0x80–0xFF into standalone surrogate code units U+DC80–U+DCFF, resulting in a string such as this. This is typically only used internally, so you're unlikely to meet it in files or on the wire; and it only applies to UTF-16 in as much as Python's str datatype is based on 16-bit code units (which is on ‘narrow’ builds between 3.0 and 3.3).
I'm not aware of any other commonly-used extensions/variants of UTF-16.
Related
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?
In Swift Programming Language 3.0, chapter on string and character, the book states
A Unicode scalar is any Unicode code point in the range U+0000 to
U+D7FF inclusive or U+E000 to U+10FFFF inclusive. Unicode scalars do
not include the Unicode surrogate pair code points, which are the code
points in the range U+D800 to U+DFFF inclusive
What does this mean?
A Unicode Scalar is a code point which is not serialised as a pair of UTF-16 code units.
A code point is the number resulting from encoding a character in the Unicode standard. For instance, the code point of the letter A is 0x41 (or 65 in decimal).
A code unit is each group of bits used in the serialisation of a code point. For instance, UTF-16 uses one or two code units of 16 bit each.
The letter A is a Unicode Scalar because it can be expressed with only one code unit: 0x0041. However, less common characters require two UTF-16 code units. This pair of code units is called surrogate pair. Thus, Unicode Scalar may also be defined as: any code point except those represented by surrogate pairs.
The answer from courteouselk is correct by the way, this is just a more plain english version.
From Unicode FAQ:
Q: What are surrogates?
A: Surrogates are code points from two special ranges of Unicode values, reserved for use as the leading, and trailing values of paired code units in UTF-16. Leading, also called high, surrogates are from D80016 to DBFF16, and trailing, or low, surrogates are from DC0016 to DFFF16. They are called surrogates, since they do not represent characters directly, but only as a pair.
Basically, surrogates are codepoints that are reserved for special purposes and promised to never encode a character on their own but always as a first codepoint in a pair of UTF-16 encoding.
[UPD] Also, from wikipedia:
The Unicode standard permanently reserves these code point values for UTF-16 encoding of the high and low surrogates, and they will never be assigned a character, so there should be no reason to encode them. The official Unicode standard says that no UTF forms, including UTF-16, can encode these code points.
However UCS-2, UTF-8, and UTF-32 can encode these code points in trivial and obvious ways, and large amounts of software does so even though the standard states that such arrangements should be treated as encoding errors. It is possible to unambiguously encode them in UTF-16 by using a code unit equal to the code point, as long as no sequence of two code units can be interpreted as a legal surrogate pair (that is, as long as a high surrogate is never followed by a low surrogate). The majority of UTF-16 encoder and decoder implementations translate between encodings as though this were the case[citation needed] and Windows allows such sequences in filenames.
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].
We know that codepoints can be in this interval 0..10FFFF which is less than 2^21. Then why do we need UTF-32 when all codepoints can be represented by 3 bytes? UTF-24 should be enough.
Computers are generally much better at dealing with data on 4 byte boundaries. The benefits in terms of reduced memory consumption are relatively small compared with the pain of working on 3-byte boundaries.
(I speculate there was also a reluctance to have a limit that was "only what we can currently imagine being useful" when coming up with the original design. After all, that's caused a lot of problems in the past, e.g. with IPv4. While I can't see us ever needing more than 24 bits, if 32 bits is more convenient anyway then it seems reasonable to avoid having a limit which might just be hit one day, via reserved ranges etc.)
I guess this is a bit like asking why we often have 8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit and 64-bit integer datatypes (byte, int, long, whatever) but not 24-bit ones. I'm sure there are lots of occasions where we know that a number will never go beyond 221, but it's just simpler to use int than to create a 24-bit type.
First there were 2 character coding schemes: UCS-4 that coded each character into 32 bits, as an unsigned integer in range 0x00000000 - 0x7FFFFFFF, and UCS-2 that used 16 bits for each codepoint.
Later it was found out that using just the 65536 codepoints of UCS-2 would get one into problems anyway, but many programs (Windows, cough) relied on wide characters being 16 bits wide, so UTF-16 was created. UTF-16 encodes the codepints in the range U+0000 - U+FFFF just like UCS-2; and U+10000 - U+10FFFF using surrogate pairs, i.e. a pair of two 16-bit values.
As this was a bit complicated, UTF-32 was introduced, as a simple one-to-one mapping for characters beyond U+FFFF. Now, since UTF-16 can only encode up to U+10FFFF, it was decided that this is will be the maximum value that will be ever assigned, so that there will be no further compatibility problems, so UTF-32 indeed just uses 21 bits. As an added bonus, UTF-8, which was initially planned to be a 1-6-byte encoding, now never needs more than 4 bytes for each code point. Therefore it can be easily proven that it never requires more storage than UTF-32.
It is true that a hypothetical UTF-24 format would save memory. However its savings would be dubious anyway, as it would mostly consume more storage than UTF-8, except for just blasts of emoji or such - and not many interesting texts of significant length consist solely of emojis.
But, UTF-32 is used as in memory representation for text in programs that need to have simply-indexed access to codepoints - it is the only encoding where the Nth element in a C array is also the Nth codepoint - UTF-24 would do the same for 25 % memory savings but more complicated element accesses.
It's true that only 21 bits are required (reference), but modern computers are good at moving 32-bit units of things around and generally interacting with them. I don't think I've ever used a programming language that had a 24-bit integer or character type, nor a platform where that was a multiple of the processor's word size (not since I last used an 8-bit computer; UTF-24 would be reasonable on an 8-bit machine), though naturally there have been some.
UTF-32 is a multiple of 16bit. Working with 32 bit quantities is much more common than working with 24 bit quantities and is usually better supported. It also helps keep each character 4-byte aligned (assuming the entire string is 4-byte aligned). Going from 1 byte to 2 bytes to 4 bytes is the most "logical" procession.
Apart from that: The Unicode standard is ever-growing. Codepoints outside of that range could eventually be assigned (it is somewhat unlikely in the near future, however, due to the huge number of unassigned codepoints still available).
The closest contenders that I could find so far are yEnc (2%) and ASCII85 (25% overhead). There seem to be some issues around yEnc mainly around the fact that it uses an 8-bit character set. Which leads to another thought: is there a binary to text encoding based on the UTF-8 character set?
This really depends on the nature of the binary data, and the constraints that "text" places on your output.
First off, if your binary data is not compressed, try compressing before encoding. We can then assume that the distribution of 1/0 or individual bytes is more or less random.
Now: why do you need text? Typically, it's because the communication channel does not pass through all characters equally. e.g. you may require pure ASCII text, whose printable characters range from 0x20-0x7E. You have 95 characters to play with. Each character can theoretically encode log2(95) ~= 6.57 bits per character. It's easy to define a transform that comes pretty close.
But: what if you need a separator character? Now you only have 94 characters, etc. So the choice of an encoding really depends on your requirements.
To take an extremely stupid example: if your channel passes all 256 characters without issues, and you don't need any separators, then you can write a trivial transform that achieves 100% efficiency. :-) How to do so is left as an exercise for the reader.
UTF-8 is not a good transport for arbitrarily encoded binary data. It is able to transport values 0x01-0x7F with only 14% overhead. I'm not sure if 0x00 is legal; likely not. But anything above 0x80 expands to multiple bytes in UTF-8. I'd treat UTF-8 as a constrained channel that passes 0x01-0x7F, or 126 unique characters. If you don't need delimeters then you can transmit 6.98 bits per character.
A general solution to this problem: assume an alphabet of N characters whose binary encodings are 0 to N-1. (If the encodings are not as assumed, then use a lookup table to translate between our intermediate 0..N-1 representation and what you actually send and receive.)
Assume 95 characters in the alphabet. Now: some of these symbols will represent 6 bits, and some will represent 7 bits. If we have A 6-bit symbols and B 7-bit symbols, then:
A+B=95 (total number of symbols)
2A+B=128 (total number of 7-bit prefixes that can be made. You can start 2 prefixes with a 6-bit symbol, or one with a 7-bit symbol.)
Solving the system, you get: A=33, B=62. You now build a table of symbols:
Raw Encoded
000000 0000000
000001 0000001
...
100000 0100000
1000010 0100001
1000011 0100010
...
1111110 1011101
1111111 1011110
To encode, first shift off 6 bits of input. If those six bits are greater or equal to 100001 then shift another bit. Then look up the corresponding 7-bit output code, translate to fit in the output space and send. You will be shifting 6 or 7 bits of input each iteration.
To decode, accept a byte and translate to raw output code. If the raw code is less than 0100001 then shift the corresponding 6 bits onto your output. Otherwise shift the corresponding 7 bits onto your output. You will be generating 6-7 bits of output each iteration.
For uniformly distributed data I think this is optimal. If you know that you have more zeros than ones in your source, then you might want to map the 7-bit codes to the start of the space so that it is more likely that you can use a 7-bit code.
The short answer would be: No, there still isn't.
I ran into the problem with encoding as much information into JSON string, meaning UTF-8 without control characters, backslash and quotes.
I went out and researched how many bit you can squeeze into valid UTF-8 bytes. I disagree with answers stating that UTF-8 brings too much overhead. It's not true.
If you take into account only one-byte sequences, it's as powerful as standard ASCII. Meaning 7 bits per byte. But if you cut out all special characters you'll be left with something like Ascii85.
But there are fewer control characters in higher planes. So if you use 6-byte chunks you'll be able to encode 5 bytes per chunk. In the output you'll get any combination of UTF-8 characters of any length (for 1 to 6 bytes).
This will give you a better result than Ascii85: 5/6 instead of 4/5, 83% efficiency instead of 80%. In theory it'll get even better with higher chunk length: about 84% at 19-byte chunks.
In my opinion the encoding process becomes too complicated while it provides very little profit. So Ascii85 or some modified version of it (I'm looking at Z85 now) would be better.
I searched for most efficient binary to text encoding last year. I realized for myself that compactness is not the only criteria. The most important is where you are able to use encoded string. For example, yEnc has 2% overhead, but it is 8-bit encoding, so its usage is very very limited.
My choice is Z85. It has acceptable 25% overhead, and encoded string can be used almost everywhere: XML, JSON, source code etc. See Z85 specification for details.
Finally, I've written Z85 library in C/C++ and use it in production.
According to Wikipedia
basE91 produces the shortest plain ASCII output for compressed 8-bit binary input.
Currently base91 is the best encoding if you're limited to ASCII characters only and don't want to use non-printable characters. It also has the advantage of lightning fast encoding/decoding speed because a lookup table can be used, unlike base85 which has to be decoded using slow divisions
Going above that base122 will help increasing efficiency a little bit, but it's not 8-bit clean. However because it's based on UTF-8 encoding, it should be fine to use for many purposes. And 8-bit clean is just meaningless nowadays
Note that base122 is in fact base-128 because the 6 invalid values (128 – 122) are encoded specially so that a series of 14 bits can always be represented with at most 2 bytes, exactly like base-128 where 7 bits will be encoded in 1 byte, and in reality can be optimized to be more efficient than base-128
Base-122 Encoding
Base-122 encoding takes chunks of seven bits of input data at a time. If the chunk maps to a legal character, it is encoded with the single byte UTF-8 character: 0xxxxxxx. If the chunk would map to an illegal character, we instead use the the two-byte UTF-8 character: 110xxxxx 10xxxxxx. Since there are only six illegal code points, we can distinguish them with only three bits. Denoting these bits as sss gives us the format: 110sssxx 10xxxxxx. The remaining eight bits could seemingly encode more input data. Unfortunately, two-byte UTF-8 characters representing code points less than 0x80 are invalid. Browsers will parse invalid UTF-8 characters into error characters. A simple way of enforcing code points greater than 0x80 is to use the format 110sss1x 10xxxxxx, equivalent to a bitwise OR with 0x80 (this can likely be improved, see §4). Figure 3 summarizes the complete base-122 encoding.
http://blog.kevinalbs.com/base122
See also How viable is base128 encoding for scenarios like JavaScript strings?
Next to the ones listed on Wikipedia, there is Bommanews:
B-News (or bommanews) was developed to lift the weight of the overhead inherent to UUEncode and Base64 encoding: it uses a new encoding method to stuff binary data in text messages. This method eats more CPU resources, but it manages to lower the loss from approximately 40% for UUEncode to 3.5% (the decimal point between those digits is not dirt on your monitor), while still avoiding the use of ANSI control codes in the message body.
It's comparable to yEnc: source
yEnc is less CPU-intensive than B-News and reaches about the same low level of overhead, but it doesn't avoid the use of all control codes, it just leaves out those that were (experimentally) observed to have undesired effects on some servers, which means that it's somewhat less RFC compliant than B-News.
http://b-news.sourceforge.net/
http://www.iguana.be/~stef/
http://bnews-plus.sourceforge.net/
If you are looking for an efficient encoding for large alphabets, you might want to try escapeless. Both escapeless252 and yEnc have 1.6% overhead, but with the first it's fixed and known in advance while with the latter it actually ranges from 0 to 100% depending on the distribution of bytes.