I'm working with a binary file that references another file using absolute paths.
The path contains both japanese and ascii characters.
The length of the string is given, so I can just read that many bytes and convert it into a string.
However the problem is trying to convert the string. If I specify the encoding as ascii, it'll fail on the japanese characters. If I specify it as japanese encoding (shift-jis or something), it won't read the english characters properly.
One byte is used for each ascii character, while two bytes are used for each japanese character.
What is the fastest and cleanest way to convert these bytes into a string? The encodings are known. Will the same technique work in older versions of python.
This sounds like you have fallen victim for a misunderstand the basics of Unicode and encodings. It may be that you have not, but misunderstandnings are common and understandable, while the situation you describe are not.
A string of bytes that contains mixed encodings are, per definition, invalid in any of these encodings. If this really was the case, you would have to split the bytes string into it's parts, and decode every part separately. In this case it would probably mean splitting on the path separators, so it would be reasonably easy, but in other cases it would not. However, I serously doubt that this is the case, as it would mean that your source is insane. That happens, but it is unlikely. :-)
If the source gives you one path as a bytes string, it is most likely that this string uses only one encoding. It may contain both Japanese and ASCII-characters and still be using one encoding. The most common encodings that can handle both Japanese and ASCII are UTF-8 and UTF-16. My guess is that your source uses one of those. In fact, since you write "One byte is used for each ascii character, while two bytes are used for each japanese character" it is probably UTF-8. It could also be Shift JIS, but it seems you already tried that.
If not, please explain what your source is, and give examples of the byte strings (in ASCII/HEX) that you are given.
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.
I haven't found much (concise) info about when exactly to use Unicode. I understand that many say best practice is to always use Unicode. But Unicode strings DO have more memory footprint. Am I correct to say that Unicode must be used only when
Printing something to screen other than local (for example debugging) use.
Generally, sending any type of text across a network with the two ends being in different locales/country
When you're not sure which to use
I think it would be beneficial if someone explained the basics (concise) of what actually happens with Unicode... am I correct to say that things get messy when :
the physical (byte) string gets sent to a machine using a representation of strings (code page, others... this is already detail although interesting) different from the sender.
The context is using Unicode in a programming language (say C++), but I hope answers to this question can be used for any encoding situation.
Also, I'm aware Unicode and NLS are not the same thing, but is it correct to say that NLS implies usage of Unicode?
P.S. awesome site
Always use Unicode, it will save you and others a lot of pain.
What you may have confused is the issue of encoding. Unicode strings do not necessarily take more memory than the equivalent ASCII (or other encoding) strings, that depends a lot on the encoding used.
Sometimes "Unicode" is used as a synonym for "UCS-2" or "UTF-16". Strictly speaking that use is wrong, because "Unicode" is the standard that defines the set of characters and their unicode codepoints. It does not as such define a mapping to bytes (or words). UTF-16, UTF-8 and other encoding take over the job of mapping the characters to concrete bytes.
The beauty of Unicode is that it frees you from restrictions and lots of headaches. Unicode is the largest character set available to date, i.e. it enables you to actually encode and use virtually any character of any halfway mainstream language in use today. With any other character set you need to think about whether it can actually encode a character or not. Latin-1 cannot encode the character "あ", Shift-JIS cannot encode the character "ڥ" and so on. Only if you're very sure you will never ever need anything other than basic Latin/Arabic/Japanaese/whatever other subset of characters should you choose a specialized encoding such as Latin-1, BIG-5, Shift-JIS or ASCII.
Unicode is the most versatile charset available and therefore a good standard to adhere to.
The Unicode encodings are nothing special, they're just a little more complex in their bit representation since they have to encode many more characters while still trying to be space efficient. For a very detailed excursion into this topic, please see What Every Programmer Absolutely, Positively Needs To Know About Encodings And Character Sets To Work With Text.
I have a little utility which is sometimes helpful in seeing the difference between character encodings. http://sodved.awardspace.info/unicode.pl. If you paste in ö into the Raw (UTF-8) field you will see that it is represented by different byte sequences in different encodings. And as the other two good answers describe, some non-unicode encodings cannot represent it at all.
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.
I have a twelve-year-old Windows program. As may be obvious to the knowledgeable, it was designed for ASCII characters, not Unicode. Most of it has been converted, but there's one spot that still needs to be changed over. There is a serious constraint on it though: the exact same ASCII byte sequence MUST be created by different encoders, some of which will be operating on non-Windows systems.
I'm trying to determine whether UTF-8 will do the trick or not. I've heard in passing that different UTF-8 sequences can come up with the same Unicode string, which would be a problem here.
So the question is: given a Unicode string, can I expect a single canonical UTF-8 sequence to be generated by any standards-conforming implementation of a converter? Or are there multiple possibilities?
Any given Unicode string will have only one representation in UTF-8.
I think the confusion here is that there are multiple ways in Unicode to get the same visual output for some languages. Not to mention that Unicode has several characters that have no visual representation.
But this has nothing to do with UTF-8, its a property of Unicode itself. The encoding of a given Unicode as UTF-8 is a purely mechanical process, and it's perfectly reversible.
The conversion rules are here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8
As John already said, there is only one standards-conforming UTF-8 representation.
But the tricky point is "standards-conforming".
Older encoders are usually unable to properly convert UTF-16 because of surrogates.
Java is one notable case of those non-conforming converters (it will produce two 3-bytes sequences instead of one 4-byte sequence).
MySQL had problems until recently, and I am not sure about the current status.
Now, you will only have problems with code points that need surrogates, meaning above U+FFFF. If you application survived without Unicode for a long time, it means you never needed to move such "esoteric" characters :-)
But it is good to get things right from the get go.
Try using standards-conforming encoders and you will be fine.
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