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.
In Ingres, the DBA has two options when creating Unicode-aware Ingres databases. createdb has the -i flag for NFC (Normalization Form C) and -n for NFD (Normalization Form C). Documentation makes no distinction between them, the description is almost identical.
May we assume there are no differences, or there actually are some differences between them?
The difference is whether the characters are composed (C) or decomposed (D).
Letters with "extra bits" like ä can be represented in different ways. There is a Unicode code point specially created for a with two dots. That is the composed form, NFC. On the other hand you could represent it as the usual "a" followed by a combining character that adds the two dots. That is the decomposed form, NFD.
The decomposed form takes more space, but the composed form makes some operations harder, such as comparing strings while ignoring differences in accents.
Quoted from here:
Security may also be impacted by a characteristic of several character
encodings, including UTF-8: the "same thing" (as far as a user can
tell) can be represented by several distinct character sequences. For
instance, an e with acute accent can be represented by the precomposed
U+00E9 E ACUTE character or by the canonically equivalent sequence
U+0065 U+0301 (E + COMBINING ACUTE). Even though UTF-8 provides a
single byte sequence for each character sequence, the existence of
multiple character sequences for "the same thing" may have security
consequences whenever string matching, indexing,
Is this a hidden feature of UTF-8 that I've never tackled before?
This issue is not actually specific to UTF-8 at all. It happens with all encodings that can represent all (or at least most) Unicode codepoints.
The general idea of Unicode is to not provide so-called pre-composed characters (e.g. U+00E9 E ACUTE), instead they usually like to provide the base character (e.g. U+0065 LATIN SMALL LETTER E) and the combining character (e.g. U+0301 COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT). This has the advantage of not having to provide every possible combination as its own character.
Note: the U+xxxx notation is used to refer to unicode codepoints. It's the encoding-independent way to refer to Unicode characters.
However when Unicode was first designed an important goal was to have round-trip compatibility for existing, widely-used encodings, so some pre-composed characters were included (in fact most of the diacritic characters from the latin and related alphabets are included).
So yes (and tl;dr): in a correctly working Unicode-capable application U+00E9 should render the same way and be treated the same way as U+0065 followed by U+0301.
There's a non-trivial process called normalization that helps work with these differences by reducing a given string to one of four normal forms.
For example passing both strings (U+00E9 and U+0065 U+0301) will result in U+00E9 when using NFC and will result in U+0065 U+0301 when using NFD.
Very short and visualized example: the character "é" can either be represented using the Unicode code point U+00E9 (LATIN SMALL LETTER E WITH ACUTE, é), or the sequence U+0065 (LATIN SMALL LETTER E, e) followed by U+0301 (COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT, ´), which together look like this: é.
In UTF-8, é has the byte sequence xC3 xA9, while é has the byte sequence x65 xCC x81.
Note: Due to technical limitations this post does not contain the actual combination characters.
Actually I don't understand what it means by :
"Even though UTF-8 provides a single byte sequence for each character
sequence[...]"
What the quote wants to say is:
"Any given sequence of Unicode code points is mapped to one (and precisely one) sequence of bytes by the UTF-8 encoding." That is, UTF-8 is a bijection between sequences of (abstract) Unicode code points and bytes.
The problem, which the text wants to illustrate, is that there is no bijection between "letters of a text" (as commonly understood) and Unicode code points, because the same text can be represented by different sequences of Unicode code points (as explained in the example).
Actually, this has nothing to do with UTF-8 specifically; it is a fundamental property of Unicode: Many texts have more than one representations as Unicode code points. This is important to keep in mind when comparing texts expressed in Unicode (no matter in what encoding).
One (partial) solution to this is normalization. It defines various Normal forms for Unicode text, which are unique representations of a text.
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.
Can anybody please tell me what is the range of Unicode printable characters? [e.g. Ascii printable character range is \u0020 - \u007f]
See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_control_characters
You might want to look especially at C0 and C1 control character http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C0_and_C1_control_codes
The wiki says, the C0 control character is in the range U+0000—U+001F and U+007F (which is the same range as ASCII) and C1 control character is in the range U+0080—U+009F
other than C-control character, Unicode also has hundreds of formatting control characters, e.g. zero-width non-joiner, which makes character spacing closer, or bidirectional text control. This formatting control characters are rather scattered.
More importantly, what are you doing that requires you to know Unicode's non-printable characters? More likely than not, whatever you're trying to do is the wrong approach to solve your problem.
This is an old question, but it is still valid and I think there is more to usefully, but briefly, say on the subject than is covered by existing answers.
Unicode
Unicode defines properties for characters.
One of these properties is "General Category" which has Major classes and subclasses. The Major classes are Letter, Mark, Punctuation, Symbol, Separator, and Other.
By knowing the properties of your characters, you can decide whether you consider them printable in your particular context.
You must always remember that terms like "character" and "printable" are often difficult and have interesting edge-cases.
Programming Language support
Some programming languages assist with this problem.
For example, the Go language has a "unicode" package which provides many useful Unicode-related functions including these two:
func IsGraphic(r rune) bool
IsGraphic reports whether the rune is defined as a Graphic by Unicode. Such
characters include letters, marks, numbers, punctuation, symbols, and spaces,
from categories L, M, N, P, S, Zs.
func IsPrint(r rune) bool
IsPrint reports whether the rune is defined as printable by Go. Such
characters include letters, marks, numbers, punctuation, symbols, and
the ASCII space character, from categories L, M, N, P, S and the ASCII
space character. This categorization is the same as IsGraphic except
that the only spacing character is ASCII space, U+0020.
Notice that it says "defined as printable by Go" not by "defined as printable by Unicode". It is almost as if there are some depths the wizards at Unicode dare not plumb.
Printable
The more you learn about Unicode, the more you realise how unexpectedly diverse and unfathomably weird human writing systems are.
In particular whether a particular "character" is printable is not always obvious.
Is a zero-width space printable? When is a hyphenation point printable? Are there characters whose printability depends on their position in a word or on what characters are adjacent to them? Is a combining-character always printable?
Footnotes
ASCII printable character range is \u0020 - \u007f
No it isn't. \u007f is DEL which is not normally considered a printable character. It is, for example, associated with the keyboard key labelled "DEL" whose earliest purpose was to command the deletion of a character from some medium (display, file etc).
In fact many 8-bit character sets have many non-consecutive ranges which are non-printable. See for example C0 and C1 controls.
First, you should remove the word 'UTF8' in your question, it's not pertinent (UTF8 is just one of the encodings of Unicode, it's something orthogonal to your question).
Second: the meaning of "printable/non printable" is less clear in Unicode. Perhaps you mean a "graphical character" ; and one can even dispute if a space is printable/graphical. The non-graphical characters would consist, basically, of control characters: the range 0x00-0x0f plus some others that are scattered.
Anyway, the vast majority of Unicode characters (more than 200.000) are "graphical". But this certainly does not imply that they are printable in your environment.
It seems to me a bad idea, if you intend to generate a "random printable" unicode string, to try to include all "printable" characters.
What you should do is pick a font, and then generate a list of which Unicode characters have glyphs defined for your font. You can use a font library like freetype to test glyphs (test for FT_Get_Char_Index(...) != 0).
Taking the opposite approach to #HoldOffHunger, it might be easier to list the ranges of non-printable characters, and use not to test if a character is printable.
In the style of Regex (so if you wanted printable characters, place a ^):
[\u0000-\u0008\u000B-\u001F\u007F-\u009F\u2000-\u200F\u2028-\u202F\u205F-\u206F\u3000\uFEFF]
Which accounts for things like separator spaces and joiners
Note that unlike their answer which is a whitelist that ignores all non-latin languages, this blacklist wont permit non-printable characters just because they're in blocks with printable characters (their answer wholly includes Non-Latin, Language Supplement blocks as 'printable', even though it contains things like 'zero-width non-joiner'..).
Be aware though, that if using this or any other solution, for sanitation for example, you may want to do something more nuanced than a blanket replace.
Arguably in that case, non-breaking spaces should change to space, not be removed, and invisible separator should be replaced with comma conditionally.
Then there's invalid character ranges, either [yet] unused or reserved for encoding purposes, and language-specific variation selectors..
NB when using regular expressions, that you enable unicode awareness if it isn't that way by default (for javascript it's via /.../u).
You can tell if you have it correct by attempting to create the regular expression with some multi-byte character ranges.
For example, the above, plus the invalid character range \u{E0100}-\u{E01EF} in javascript:
/[\u0000-\u0008\u000B-\u001F\u007F-\u009F\u2000-\u200F\u2028-\u202F\u205F-\u206F\u3000\uFEFF\u{E0100}-\u{E01EF}]/u
Without u \u{E0100}-\u{E01EF} equates to \uDB40(\uDD00-\uDB40)\uDDEF, not (\uDB40\uDD00)-(\uDB40\uDDEF), and if replacing you should always enable u even when not including multbyte unicode in the regex itself as you might break surrogate pairs that exist in the text.
What characters are valid?
At present, Unicode is defined as starting from U+0000 and ending at U+10FFFF. The first block, Basic Latin, spans U+0000 to U+007F and the last block, Supplementary Private Use Area-B, spans U+100000 to 10FFFF. If you want to see all of these blocks, see here: Wikipedia.org: Unicode Block; List of Blocks.
Let's break down what's valid/invalid in the Latin Block1.
The Latin Block: TLDR
If you're interested in filtering out either invisible characters, you'll want to filter out:
U+0000 to U+0008: Control
U+000E to U+001F: Device (i.e., Control)
U+007F: Delete (Control)
U+008D to U+009F: Device (i.e., Control)
The Latin Block: Full Ranges
Here's the Latin block, broken up into smaller sections...
U+0000 to U+0008: Control
U+0009 to U+000C: Space
U+000E to U+001F: Device (i.e., Control)
U+0020: Space
U+0021 to U+002F: Symbols
U+0030 to U+0039: Numbers
U+003A to U+0040: Symbols
U+0041 to U+005A: Uppercase Letters
U+005B to U+0060: Symbols
U+0061 to U+007A: Lowercase Letters
U+007B to U+007E: Symbols
U+007F: Delete (Control)
U+0080 to U+008C: Latin1-Supplement symbols.
U+008D to U+009F: Device (i.e., Control)
U+00A0: Non-breaking space. (i.e., )
U+00A1 to U+00BF: Symbols.
U+00C0 to U+00FF: Accented characters.
The Other Blocks
Unicode is famous for supporting non-Latin character sets, so what are these other blocks? This is just a broad overview, see the wikipedia.org page for the full, complete list.
Latin1 & Latin1-Related Blocks
U+0000 to U+007F : Basic Latin
U+0080 to U+00FF : Latin-1 Supplement
U+0100 to U+017F : Latin Extended-A
U+0180 to U+024F : Latin Extended-B
Combinable blocks
U+0250 to U+036F: 3 Blocks.
Non-Latin, Language blocks
U+0370 to U+1C7F: 55 Blocks.
Non-Latin, Language Supplement blocks
U+1C80 to U+209F: 11 Blocks.
Symbol blocks
U+20A0 to U+2BFF: 22 Blocks.
Ancient Language blocks
U+2C00 to U+2C5F: 1 Block (Glagolitic).
Language Extensions blocks
U+2C60 to U+FFEF: 66 Blocks.
Special blocks
U+FFF0 to U+FFFF: 1 Block (Specials).
One approach is to render each character to a texture and manually check if it is visible. This solution excludes spaces.
I've written such a program and used it to determine there are roughly 467241 printable characters within the first 471859 code points. I've selected this number because it covers all of the first 4 Planes of Unicode, which seem to contain all printable characters. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_(Unicode)
I would much like to refine my program to produce the list of ranges, but for now here's what I am working with for anyone who needs immediate answers:
https://editor.p5js.org/SamyBencherif/sketches/_OE8Y3kS9
I am posting this tool because I think this question attracts a lot of people who are looking for slightly different applications of knowing printable ranges. Hopefully this is useful, even though it does not fully answer the question.
The printable Unicode character range, excluding the hex, is 32 to 126 in the int datatype.
Unicode, stict term, has no range. Numbers can go infinite.
What you gave is not UTF8 which has 1 byte for ASCII characters.
As for the range, I believe there is no range of printable characters. It always evolves. Check the page I gave above.