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).
Related
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.
What's the exact difference between Unicode and ASCII?
ASCII has a total of 128 characters (256 in the extended set).
Is there any size specification for Unicode characters?
ASCII defines 128 characters, which map to the numbers 0–127. Unicode defines (less than) 221 characters, which, similarly, map to numbers 0–221 (though not all numbers are currently assigned, and some are reserved).
Unicode is a superset of ASCII, and the numbers 0–127 have the same meaning in ASCII as they have in Unicode. For example, the number 65 means "Latin capital 'A'".
Because Unicode characters don't generally fit into one 8-bit byte, there are numerous ways of storing Unicode characters in byte sequences, such as UTF-32 and UTF-8.
Understanding why ASCII and Unicode were created in the first place helped me understand the differences between the two.
ASCII, Origins
As stated in the other answers, ASCII uses 7 bits to represent a character. By using 7 bits, we can have a maximum of 2^7 (= 128) distinct combinations*. Which means that we can represent 128 characters maximum.
Wait, 7 bits? But why not 1 byte (8 bits)?
The last bit (8th) is used for avoiding errors as parity bit.
This was relevant years ago.
Most ASCII characters are printable characters of the alphabet such as abc, ABC, 123, ?&!, etc. The others are control characters such as carriage return, line feed, tab, etc.
See below the binary representation of a few characters in ASCII:
0100101 -> % (Percent Sign - 37)
1000001 -> A (Capital letter A - 65)
1000010 -> B (Capital letter B - 66)
1000011 -> C (Capital letter C - 67)
0001101 -> Carriage Return (13)
See the full ASCII table over here.
ASCII was meant for English only.
What? Why English only? So many languages out there!
Because the center of the computer industry was in the USA at that
time. As a consequence, they didn't need to support accents or other
marks such as á, ü, ç, ñ, etc. (aka diacritics).
ASCII Extended
Some clever people started using the 8th bit (the bit used for parity) to encode more characters to support their language (to support "é", in French, for example). Just using one extra bit doubled the size of the original ASCII table to map up to 256 characters (2^8 = 256 characters). And not 2^7 as before (128).
10000010 -> é (e with acute accent - 130)
10100000 -> á (a with acute accent - 160)
The name for this "ASCII extended to 8 bits and not 7 bits as before" could be just referred as "extended ASCII" or "8-bit ASCII".
As #Tom pointed out in his comment below there is no such thing as "extended ASCII" yet this is an easy way to refer to this 8th-bit trick. There are many variations of the 8-bit ASCII table, for example, the ISO 8859-1, also called ISO Latin-1.
Unicode, The Rise
ASCII Extended solves the problem for languages that are based on the Latin alphabet... what about the others needing a completely different alphabet? Greek? Russian? Chinese and the likes?
We would have needed an entirely new character set... that's the rational behind Unicode. Unicode doesn't contain every character from every language, but it sure contains a gigantic amount of characters (see this table).
You cannot save text to your hard drive as "Unicode". Unicode is an abstract representation of the text. You need to "encode" this abstract representation. That's where an encoding comes into play.
Encodings: UTF-8 vs UTF-16 vs UTF-32
This answer does a pretty good job at explaining the basics:
UTF-8 and UTF-16 are variable length encodings.
In UTF-8, a character may occupy a minimum of 8 bits.
In UTF-16, a character length starts with 16 bits.
UTF-32 is a fixed length encoding of 32 bits.
UTF-8 uses the ASCII set for the first 128 characters. That's handy because it means ASCII text is also valid in UTF-8.
Mnemonics:
UTF-8: minimum 8 bits.
UTF-16: minimum 16 bits.
UTF-32: minimum and maximum 32 bits.
Note:
Why 2^7?
This is obvious for some, but just in case. We have seven slots available filled with either 0 or 1 (Binary Code).
Each can have two combinations. If we have seven spots, we have 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 = 2^7 = 128 combinations. Think about this as a combination lock with seven wheels, each wheel having two numbers only.
Source: Wikipedia, this great blog post and Mocki.co where I initially posted this summary.
ASCII has 128 code points, 0 through 127. It can fit in a single 8-bit byte, the values 128 through 255 tended to be used for other characters. With incompatible choices, causing the code page disaster. Text encoded in one code page cannot be read correctly by a program that assumes or guessed at another code page.
Unicode came about to solve this disaster. Version 1 started out with 65536 code points, commonly encoded in 16 bits. Later extended in version 2 to 1.1 million code points. The current version is 6.3, using 110,187 of the available 1.1 million code points. That doesn't fit in 16 bits anymore.
Encoding in 16-bits was common when v2 came around, used by Microsoft and Apple operating systems for example. And language runtimes like Java. The v2 spec came up with a way to map those 1.1 million code points into 16-bits. An encoding called UTF-16, a variable length encoding where one code point can take either 2 or 4 bytes. The original v1 code points take 2 bytes, added ones take 4.
Another variable length encoding that's very common, used in *nix operating systems and tools is UTF-8, a code point can take between 1 and 4 bytes, the original ASCII codes take 1 byte the rest take more. The only non-variable length encoding is UTF-32, takes 4 bytes for a code point. Not often used since it is pretty wasteful. There are other ones, like UTF-1 and UTF-7, widely ignored.
An issue with the UTF-16/32 encodings is that the order of the bytes will depend on the endian-ness of the machine that created the text stream. So add to the mix UTF-16BE, UTF-16LE, UTF-32BE and UTF-32LE.
Having these different encoding choices brings back the code page disaster to some degree, along with heated debates among programmers which UTF choice is "best". Their association with operating system defaults pretty much draws the lines. One counter-measure is the definition of a BOM, the Byte Order Mark, a special codepoint (U+FEFF, zero width space) at the beginning of a text stream that indicates how the rest of the stream is encoded. It indicates both the UTF encoding and the endianess and is neutral to a text rendering engine. Unfortunately it is optional and many programmers claim their right to omit it so accidents are still pretty common.
java provides support for Unicode i.e it supports all world wide alphabets. Hence the size of char in java is 2 bytes. And range is 0 to 65535.
ASCII has 128 code positions, allocated to graphic characters and control characters (control codes).
Unicode has 1,114,112 code positions. About 100,000 of them have currently been allocated to characters, and many code points have been made permanently noncharacters (i.e. not used to encode any character ever), and most code points are not yet assigned.
The only things that ASCII and Unicode have in common are: 1) They are character codes. 2) The 128 first code positions of Unicode have been defined to have the same meanings as in ASCII, except that the code positions of ASCII control characters are just defined as denoting control characters, with names corresponding to their ASCII names, but their meanings are not defined in Unicode.
Sometimes, however, Unicode is characterized (even in the Unicode standard!) as “wide ASCII”. This is a slogan that mainly tries to convey the idea that Unicode is meant to be a universal character code the same way as ASCII once was (though the character repertoire of ASCII was hopelessly insufficient for universal use), as opposite to using different codes in different systems and applications and for different languages.
Unicode as such defines only the “logical size” of characters: Each character has a code number in a specific range. These code numbers can be presented using different transfer encodings, and internally, in memory, Unicode characters are usually represented using one or two 16-bit quantities per character, depending on character range, sometimes using one 32-bit quantity per character.
ASCII and Unicode are two character encodings. Basically, they are standards on how to represent difference characters in binary so that they can be written, stored, transmitted, and read in digital media. The main difference between the two is in the way they encode the character and the number of bits that they use for each. ASCII originally used seven bits to encode each character. This was later increased to eight with Extended ASCII to address the apparent inadequacy of the original. In contrast, Unicode uses a variable bit encoding program where you can choose between 32, 16, and 8-bit encodings. Using more bits lets you use more characters at the expense of larger files while fewer bits give you a limited choice but you save a lot of space. Using fewer bits (i.e. UTF-8 or ASCII) would probably be best if you are encoding a large document in English.
One of the main reasons why Unicode was the problem arose from the many non-standard extended ASCII programs. Unless you are using the prevalent page, which is used by Microsoft and most other software companies, then you are likely to encounter problems with your characters appearing as boxes. Unicode virtually eliminates this problem as all the character code points were standardized.
Another major advantage of Unicode is that at its maximum it can accommodate a huge number of characters. Because of this, Unicode currently contains most written languages and still has room for even more. This includes typical left-to-right scripts like English and even right-to-left scripts like Arabic. Chinese, Japanese, and the many other variants are also represented within Unicode. So Unicode won’t be replaced anytime soon.
In order to maintain compatibility with the older ASCII, which was already in widespread use at the time, Unicode was designed in such a way that the first eight bits matched that of the most popular ASCII page. So if you open an ASCII encoded file with Unicode, you still get the correct characters encoded in the file. This facilitated the adoption of Unicode as it lessened the impact of adopting a new encoding standard for those who were already using ASCII.
Summary:
1.ASCII uses an 8-bit encoding while Unicode uses a variable bit encoding.
2.Unicode is standardized while ASCII isn’t.
3.Unicode represents most written languages in the world while ASCII does not.
4.ASCII has its equivalent within Unicode.
Taken From: http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/software-technology/difference-between-unicode-and-ascii/#ixzz4zEjnxPhs
Storage
Given numbers are only for storing 1 character
ASCII ⟶ 27 bits (1 byte)
Extended ASCII ⟶ 28 bits (1 byte)
UTF-8 ⟶ minimum 28, maximum 232 bits (min 1, max 4 bytes)
UTF-16 ⟶ minimum 216, maximum 232 bits (min 2, max 4 bytes)
UTF-32 ⟶ 232 bits (4 bytes)
Usage (as of Feb 2020)
ASCII defines 128 characters, as Unicode contains a repertoire of more than 120,000 characters.
Beyond how UTF is a superset of ASCII, another good difference to know between ASCII and UTF is in terms of disk file encoding and data representation and storage in random memory. Programs know that given data should be understood as an ASCII or UTF string either by detecting special byte order mark codes at the start of the data, or by assuming from programmer intent that the data is text and then checking it for patterns that indicate it is in one text encoding or another.
Using the conventional prefix notation of 0x for hexadecimal data, basic good reference is that ASCII text starts with byte values 0x00 to 0x7F representing one of the possible ASCII character values. UTF text is normally indicated by starting with the bytes 0xEF 0xBB 0xBF for UTF8. For UTF16, start bytes 0xFE 0xFF, or 0xFF 0xFE are used, with the endian-ness order of the text bytes indicated by the order of the start bytes. The simple presence of byte values that are not in the ASCII range of possible byte values also indicates that data is probably UTF.
There are other byte order marks that use different codes to indicate data should be interpreted as text encoded in a certain encoding standard.
As explained here, All unicode encodings end at largest code point 10FFFF But I've heard differently that
they can go upto 6 bytes, is it true?
UTF-8 underwent some changes during its life, and there are many specifications (most of which are outdated now) which standardized UTF-8. Most of the changes were introduced to help compatibility with UTF-16 and to allow for the ever-growing amount of codepoints.
To make the long story short, UTF-8 was originally specified to allow codepoints with up to 31 bits (or 6 bytes). But with RFC3629, this was reduced to 4 bytes max. to be more compatible to UTF-16.
Wikipedia has some more information. The specification of the Universal Character Set is closely linked to the history of Unicode and its transformation format (UTF).
See the answers to Do UTF-8,UTF-16, and UTF-32 Unicode encodings differ in the number of characters they can store?
UTF-8 and UTF-32 are theoretically capable of representing characters above U+10FFFF, but were artificially restricted to match UTF-16's capacity.
The largest unicode codepoint and the encodings for unicode characters used, are two things. According to the standard, the highest codepoint really is 0x10ffff but herefore you'll need just 21 bits which fit easily into 4 bytes, even with 11 bits wasted!
I guess with your question about 6 bytes you mean a 6-byte utf-8 sequence, right? As others have answered already, using the utf-8 mechanism you could really deal with 6-byte sequences, you can even deal with 7-byte sequences and even with an 8-byte sequence. The 7-byte sequence gives you a range of just what the following bytes have to offer, 6 x 6 bits = 36 bits and a 8-byte sequence gives you 7 x 6 bits = 42 bits. You could deal with it but it is not allowed because unneeded, the highest codepoint is 0x10ffff.
It is also forbidden to use longer sequences than needed as Hibou57 has mentioned. With utf-8 one must always use the shortest sequence possible or the sequence will be treated as invalid! An ASCII character must be in a 7-bit singlebyte of course. The second thing is that the utf-8 4-byte sequence gives you 3 bits of payload in the startbyte and 18 bits of payload in the following bytes which are 21 bits and that matches to the calculation of surrogates when using the utf-16 encoding. The bias 0x10000 is subtracted from the codepoint and the remaining 20 bits go to the high- as well lo-surrogate payload area, each of 10 bits. The third and last thing is, that within utf-8 it is not allowed to encode hi- or -lo-surrogate values. Surrogates are not characters but containers for them, surrogates can only appear in utf-16, not in utf-8 or utf-32 encoded files.
Indeed, for some view of the UTF‑8 encoding, UTF‑8 may technically permit to encode code‑points beyond the forever‑fixed valid range upper‑limit; so one may encode a code‑point beyond that range, but it will not be a valid code‑point anywhere. On the other hand, you may encode a character with unneeded zeroed high‑order bits, ex. encoding an ASCII code‑point with multiple bits, like in 2#1100_0001#, 2#1000_0001# (using Ada's notation), which would for the ASCII letter A UTF‑8 encoded with two bytes. But then, it may be rejected by some safety/security filters, at this use to be used for hacking and piracy. RFC 3629 has some explanation about it. One should just stick to encode valid code‑points (as defined by Unicode), the safe way (no extraneous bytes).
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.
What are the differences between UTF-8, UTF-16, and UTF-32?
I understand that they will all store Unicode, and that each uses a different number of bytes to represent a character. Is there an advantage to choosing one over the other?
UTF-8 has an advantage in the case where ASCII characters represent the majority of characters in a block of text, because UTF-8 encodes these into 8 bits (like ASCII). It is also advantageous in that a UTF-8 file containing only ASCII characters has the same encoding as an ASCII file.
UTF-16 is better where ASCII is not predominant, since it uses 2 bytes per character, primarily. UTF-8 will start to use 3 or more bytes for the higher order characters where UTF-16 remains at just 2 bytes for most characters.
UTF-32 will cover all possible characters in 4 bytes. This makes it pretty bloated. I can't think of any advantage to using it.
In short:
UTF-8: Variable-width encoding, backwards compatible with ASCII. ASCII characters (U+0000 to U+007F) take 1 byte, code points U+0080 to U+07FF take 2 bytes, code points U+0800 to U+FFFF take 3 bytes, code points U+10000 to U+10FFFF take 4 bytes. Good for English text, not so good for Asian text.
UTF-16: Variable-width encoding. Code points U+0000 to U+FFFF take 2 bytes, code points U+10000 to U+10FFFF take 4 bytes. Bad for English text, good for Asian text.
UTF-32: Fixed-width encoding. All code points take four bytes. An enormous memory hog, but fast to operate on. Rarely used.
In long: see Wikipedia: UTF-8, UTF-16, and UTF-32.
UTF-8 is variable 1 to 4 bytes.
UTF-16 is variable 2 or 4 bytes.
UTF-32 is fixed 4 bytes.
Unicode defines a single huge character set, assigning one unique integer value to every graphical symbol (that is a major simplification, and isn't actually true, but it's close enough for the purposes of this question). UTF-8/16/32 are simply different ways to encode this.
In brief, UTF-32 uses 32-bit values for each character. That allows them to use a fixed-width code for every character.
UTF-16 uses 16-bit by default, but that only gives you 65k possible characters, which is nowhere near enough for the full Unicode set. So some characters use pairs of 16-bit values.
And UTF-8 uses 8-bit values by default, which means that the 127 first values are fixed-width single-byte characters (the most significant bit is used to signify that this is the start of a multi-byte sequence, leaving 7 bits for the actual character value). All other characters are encoded as sequences of up to 4 bytes (if memory serves).
And that leads us to the advantages. Any ASCII-character is directly compatible with UTF-8, so for upgrading legacy apps, UTF-8 is a common and obvious choice. In almost all cases, it will also use the least memory. On the other hand, you can't make any guarantees about the width of a character. It may be 1, 2, 3 or 4 characters wide, which makes string manipulation difficult.
UTF-32 is opposite, it uses the most memory (each character is a fixed 4 bytes wide), but on the other hand, you know that every character has this precise length, so string manipulation becomes far simpler. You can compute the number of characters in a string simply from the length in bytes of the string. You can't do that with UTF-8.
UTF-16 is a compromise. It lets most characters fit into a fixed-width 16-bit value. So as long as you don't have Chinese symbols, musical notes or some others, you can assume that each character is 16 bits wide. It uses less memory than UTF-32. But it is in some ways "the worst of both worlds". It almost always uses more memory than UTF-8, and it still doesn't avoid the problem that plagues UTF-8 (variable-length characters).
Finally, it's often helpful to just go with what the platform supports. Windows uses UTF-16 internally, so on Windows, that is the obvious choice.
Linux varies a bit, but they generally use UTF-8 for everything that is Unicode-compliant.
So short answer: All three encodings can encode the same character set, but they represent each character as different byte sequences.
Unicode is a standard and about UTF-x you can think as a technical implementation for some practical purposes:
UTF-8 - "size optimized": best suited for Latin character based data (or ASCII), it takes only 1 byte per character but the size grows accordingly symbol variety (and in worst case could grow up to 6 bytes per character)
UTF-16 - "balance": it takes minimum 2 bytes per character which is enough for existing set of the mainstream languages with having fixed size on it to ease character handling (but size is still variable and can grow up to 4 bytes per character)
UTF-32 - "performance": allows using of simple algorithms as result of fixed size characters (4 bytes) but with memory disadvantage
I tried to give a simple explanation in my blogpost.
UTF-32
requires 32 bits (4 bytes) to encode any character. For example, in order to represent the "A" character code-point using this scheme, you'll need to write 65 in 32-bit binary number:
00000000 00000000 00000000 01000001 (Big Endian)
If you take a closer look, you'll note that the most-right seven bits are actually the same bits when using the ASCII scheme. But since UTF-32 is fixed width scheme, we must attach three additional bytes. Meaning that if we have two files that only contain the "A" character, one is ASCII-encoded and the other is UTF-32 encoded, their size will be 1 byte and 4 bytes correspondingly.
UTF-16
Many people think that as UTF-32 uses fixed width 32 bit to represent a code-point, UTF-16 is fixed width 16 bits. WRONG!
In UTF-16 the code point maybe represented either in 16 bits, OR 32 bits. So this scheme is variable length encoding system. What is the advantage over the UTF-32? At least for ASCII, the size of files won't be 4 times the original (but still twice), so we're still not ASCII backward compatible.
Since 7-bits are enough to represent the "A" character, we can now use 2 bytes instead of 4 like the UTF-32. It'll look like:
00000000 01000001
UTF-8
You guessed right.. In UTF-8 the code point maybe represented using either 32, 16, 24 or 8 bits, and as the UTF-16 system, this one is also variable length encoding system.
Finally we can represent "A" in the same way we represent it using ASCII encoding system:
01001101
A small example where UTF-16 is actually better than UTF-8:
Consider the Chinese letter "語" - its UTF-8 encoding is:
11101000 10101010 10011110
While its UTF-16 encoding is shorter:
10001010 10011110
In order to understand the representation and how it's interpreted, visit the original post.
UTF-8
has no concept of byte-order
uses between 1 and 4 bytes per character
ASCII is a compatible subset of encoding
completely self-synchronizing e.g. a dropped byte from anywhere in a stream will corrupt at most a single character
pretty much all European languages are encoded in two bytes or less per character
UTF-16
must be parsed with known byte-order or reading a byte-order-mark (BOM)
uses either 2 or 4 bytes per character
UTF-32
every character is 4 bytes
must be parsed with known byte-order or reading a byte-order-mark (BOM)
UTF-8 is going to be the most space efficient unless a majority of the characters are from the CJK (Chinese, Japanese, and Korean) character space.
UTF-32 is best for random access by character offset into a byte-array.
I made some tests to compare database performance between UTF-8 and UTF-16 in MySQL.
Update Speeds
UTF-8
UTF-16
Insert Speeds
Delete Speeds
In UTF-32 all of characters are coded with 32 bits. The advantage is that you can easily calculate the length of the string. The disadvantage is that for each ASCII characters you waste an extra three bytes.
In UTF-8 characters have variable length, ASCII characters are coded in one byte (eight bits), most western special characters are coded either in two bytes or three bytes (for example € is three bytes), and more exotic characters can take up to four bytes. Clear disadvantage is, that a priori you cannot calculate string's length. But it's takes lot less bytes to code Latin (English) alphabet text, compared to UTF-32.
UTF-16 is also variable length. Characters are coded either in two bytes or four bytes. I really don't see the point. It has disadvantage of being variable length, but hasn't got the advantage of saving as much space as UTF-8.
Of those three, clearly UTF-8 is the most widely spread.
I'm surprised this question is 11yrs old and not one of the answers mentioned the #1 advantage of utf-8.
utf-8 generally works even with programs that are not utf-8 aware. That's partly what it was designed for. Other answers mention that the first 128 code points are the same as ASCII. All other code points are generated by 8bit values with the high bit set (values from 128 to 255) so that from the POV of a non-unicode aware program it just sees strings as ASCII with some extra characters.
As an example let's say you wrote a program to add line numbers that effectively does this (and to keep it simple let's assume end of line is just ASCII 13)
// pseudo code
function readLine
if end of file
return null
read bytes (8bit values) into string until you hit 13 or end or file
return string
function main
lineNo = 1
do {
s = readLine
if (s == null) break;
print lineNo++, s
}
Passing a utf-8 file to this program will continue to work. Similarly, splitting on tabs, commas, parsing for ASCII quotes, or other parsing for which only ASCII values are significant all just work with utf-8 because no ASCII value appear in utf-8 except when they are actually meant to be those ASCII values
Some other answers or comments mentions that utf-32 has the advantage that you can treat each codepoint separately. This would suggest for example you could take a string like "ABCDEFGHI" and split it at every 3rd code point to make
ABC
DEF
GHI
This is false. Many code points affect other code points. For example the color selector code points that lets you choose between 👨🏻🦳👨🏼🦳👨🏽🦳👨🏾🦳👨🏿🦳. If you split at any arbitrary code point you'll break those.
Another example is the bidirectional code points. The following paragraph was not entered backward. It is just preceded by the 0x202E codepoint
This line is not typed backward it is only displayed backward
So no, utf-32 will not let you just randomly manipulate unicode strings without a thought to their meanings. It will let you look at each codepoint with no extra code.
FYI though, utf-8 was designed so that looking at any individual byte you can find out the start of the current code point or the next code point.
If you take a arbitrary byte in utf-8 data. If it is < 128 it's the correct code point by itself. If it's >= 128 and < 192 (the top 2 bits are 10) then to find the start of the code point you need to look the preceding byte until you find a byte with a value >= 192 (the top 2 bits are 11). At that byte you've found the start of a codepoint. That byte encodes how many subsequent bytes make the code point.
If you want to find the next code point just scan until the byte < 128 or >= 192 and that's the start of the next code point.
Num Bytes
1st code point
last code point
Byte 1
Byte 2
Byte 3
Byte 4
1
U+0000
U+007F
0xxxxxxx
2
U+0080
U+07FF
110xxxxx
10xxxxxx
3
U+0800
U+FFFF
1110xxxx
10xxxxxx
10xxxxxx
4
U+10000
U+10FFFF
11110xxx
10xxxxxx
10xxxxxx
10xxxxxx
Where xxxxxx are the bits of the code point. Concatenate the xxxx bits from the bytes to get the code point
Depending on your development environment you may not even have the choice what encoding your string data type will use internally.
But for storing and exchanging data I would always use UTF-8, if you have the choice. If you have mostly ASCII data this will give you the smallest amount of data to transfer, while still being able to encode everything. Optimizing for the least I/O is the way to go on modern machines.
As mentioned, the difference is primarily the size of the underlying variables, which in each case get larger to allow more characters to be represented.
However, fonts, encoding and things are wickedly complicated (unnecessarily?), so a big link is needed to fill in more detail:
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/chars.html#ascii
Don't expect to understand it all, but if you don't want to have problems later it's worth learning as much as you can, as early as you can (or just getting someone else to sort it out for you).
Paul.
After reading through the answers, UTF-32 needs some loving.
C#:
Data1 = RandomNumberGenerator.GetBytes(500_000_000);
sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
int l = Encoding.UTF8.GetString(Data1).Length;
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine($"UTF-8: Elapsed - {sw.ElapsedMilliseconds * .001:0.000s} Size - {l:###,###,###}");
sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
l = Encoding.Unicode.GetString(Data1).Length;
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine($"Unicode: Elapsed - {sw.ElapsedMilliseconds * .001:0.000s} Size - {l:###,###,###}");
sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
l = Encoding.UTF32.GetString(Data1).Length;
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine($"UTF-32: Elapsed - {sw.ElapsedMilliseconds * .001:0.000s} Size - {l:###,###,###}");
sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
l = Encoding.ASCII.GetString(Data1).Length;
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine($"ASCII: Elapsed - {sw.ElapsedMilliseconds * .001:0.000s} Size - {l:###,###,###}");
UTF-8 -- Elapsed 9.939s - Size 473,752,800
Unicode -- Elapsed 0.853s - Size 250,000,000
UTF-32 -- Elapsed 3.143s - Size 125,030,570
ASCII -- Elapsed 2.362s - Size 500,000,000
UTF-32 -- MIC DROP
In short, the only reason to use UTF-16 or UTF-32 is to support non-English and ancient scripts respectively.
I was wondering why anyone would chose to have non-UTF-8 encoding when it is obviously more efficient for web/programming purposes.
A common misconception - the suffixed number is NOT an indication of its capability. They all support the complete Unicode, just that UTF-8 can handle ASCII with a single byte, so is MORE efficient/less corruptible to the CPU and over the internet.
Some good reading: http://www.personal.psu.edu/ejp10/blogs/gotunicode/2007/10/which_utf_do_i_use.html
and http://utf8everywhere.org