I work on an app that gets distributed via a single installer containing multiple localizations. The build process includes a script that updates the .ism string table with translations for each supported language.
This works fine for languages like French and German. But when testing the installer in, i.e. Japanese, the text shows up as a series of squares. It's unlikely to be a font problem, since the InstallShield-supplied strings show up fine; only the string table entries are mangled. So the problem seems to be that the strings are in the wrong encoding.
The .ism is in XML format, with UTF-8 declared as its encoding, so I assumed the strings needed to be UTF-8 encoded as well. Do they actually need to use the encoding of the target platform? Is there any concern, then, about targets having different encodings, i.e. Chinese systems using one GB-encoding versus another? What is the right thing to do here?
Edit: Using InstallShield 2009, since there is apparently a difference between that and 2010.
In InstallShield 2009 and earlier, the encoding is a base-64 encoding of the binary string in the ANSI encoding specific to the language in question (e.g. CP932 for Japanese). In InstallShield 2010 and later, it will still accept that or use UTF-8, depending on other columns in that table.
Thanks (up-voted his answer) go to Michael Urman, for pointing us in the right direction. But this is the actual working (with InstallShield 2009) algorithm, reverse-engineered by a co-worker:
Start with a unicode (multi-byte-character) string
Write out the length as the encoded-length field in the ism-file
Encode the string as UTF-16-little-endian
Base-64 using the uuencode dictionary, except with ` (back-tick) instead of spaces.
Write the result to the ism-file, escaping XML entities
Be aware that base-64ing using the uuencode dictionary is not the same as using the uuencode algorithm. Standard uuencode produces a set of newline-separated lines, including a header, footers and one or more data lines, each of which begins with a length-character. If you're implementing this using a uuencode codec, you'll need to strip all of that off.
I'm also trying to figure this out...
I've inhereted some Installshield 12 (which is pre-2009) projects with string table entries containing characters outside the range of base64 'target' characters.
For example, one of the Japanese strings is:
4P!H&$9!O'<4!R&\=!E&,=``#$(80!C&L=0!P"00!G`&4`;#!T`)(PI##S,+DPR##\,.LP5S!^,%DP`C
After much searching I happened upon Base85 encoding, which looks much closer to being plausible, but have not yet verified this to be the solution.
Related
i want to use korean translations under in my - quite large - wxwidgets application. The application uses the wxwidgets translation framework, which is based on gettext.
I have working translations for french, german and russian. I want to go unicode anyway, but my first question is:
does my application need unicode support to display korean and japanese languages?
If so, - just for interest - why does russian work without, since they have a cyrillic letterset?
I have thousands of string literals. Do i have to prepend each and every one of them with 'L' ? ( wxString foo("foo") --> wxString foo(L"foo") )
if so, did someone build a regex or sed or perl script to do this in ca. 500 .cpp files ? ( pleeze! =) )
Will this change in wxWidgets 3.0?
Unicode question general: i use these string literals in many descriptive and many technical ways .. as displayed text as well as parts of GLSL shaders as well as XML. These APIs have char* / const char* as function arguments, so my internal wxString representation should not matter in these areas. Theory and practice: is this true? Some experiences to share, anyone?
I do some text processing ( comparing, string finding etc ) - are there any logical differences in unicode vs. ansi?
Is there any remarkeable performance impact in using Unicode?
Thank you!
Wendy
Addressing some of your questions…
does my application need unicode support to display korean and japanese languages?
If so, - just for interest - why does russian work without, since they have a cyrillic letterset?
Russian fits in a single-byte charset, just like western European languages (though it is a different charset). Korean and Japanese (and Chinese) don't. There are many workarounds for this, but the most elegant I know of to date is to use Unicode so that you don't need to rebuild your application for each locale; just change its message catalog.
Unicode question general: i use these string literals in many descriptive and many technical ways .. as displayed text as well as parts of GLSL shaders as well as XML. These APIs have char* / const char* as function arguments, so my internal wxString representation should not matter in these areas. Theory and practice: is this true? Some experiences to share, anyone?
Only strings that are going to be shown to (non-technical) users need to be localized, so they're the only ones that have to be in Unicode. The most common approach is to use UTF-8 (which is a particular way of encoding Unicode) as that means that ASCII strings – the most common type passed around inside programs – are exactly the same, which simplifies things a lot. The down-side is that you no longer have cheap indexing into the string as not all characters are the same number of bytes long. That can be anything from a non-issue to a right royal hindering PITA, depending on what the program is doing.
I do some text processing ( comparing, string finding etc ) - are there any logical differences in unicode vs. ansi?
Comparisons work fine, as does simple string finding. Other operations (e.g., getting the 20th character of a string, or working out how many characters into a string you've found a substring) are nasty because you've not got constant character widths. The nastiness can be mitigated by using wide characters, but they're less nice to use for external data (they introduce potential problems with endianness unless you go into working with byte-order marks, and that's another matter right there).
Is there any remarkeable performance impact in using Unicode?
Depends on exactly what you do. With UTF-8, if you're mostly dealing with ASCII text in reality then you get very little in the way of performance problems for most operations. With wide characters, you take more memory for every character, which naturally has performance implications (but which might acceptable because it does mean you've got constant-time indexing).
There's a korean .po file on http://www.wxwidgets.org/about/i18n.php for wxWidget's own strings. If your application displays wxWidget's own strings correctly when using that file, then it does not need Unicode support to display Korean and Japanese languages.
ISO-8859-5 is an 8 bit character set with Cyrillic letters.
Only if 1. does not yield the correct result. But if you want to translate the string, you should have used _().
I don't know.
wxWidgets 3.0 will not have separate Unicode- and ANSI-builds. 2.9.1 doesn't have, either.
It depends on how you use the arguments. C- and C++-functions usually operate on the representation of strings and are unaware of any particular character encoding. Particularly what you perceive to be a character and what the program considers a character might be different things.
See 6.
I do not know, but many toolkits use UTF-16 or UTF-32 instead of UTF-8 because these schemes are simpler. It's a size-speed tradeoff.
1.does my application need unicode support to display korean and japanese
languages?
Thanks to Oswald, i found out that you can have a korean translation without using unicode in your wxwidgets application. Change ( under windows, at least ) settings for non-unicode aware programs. But i still have to check out if this is enough for a whole application.
3.I have thousands of string literals. Do i have to prepend each
and every one of them with 'L' ? (
wxString foo("foo") --> wxString
foo(L"foo") )
If you have to use unicode with wxwidgets prior to 3.0, you have to. But do not use 'L' under wxwidgets, use wxT("foo")
4.if so, did someone build a regex or sed or perl script to do this in ca. 500 .cpp files ?
I did, at least a search and replace under Visual Studio:
Search: {"([^"]*)"}
Replace: wxT(\1)
But be careful! Will replace all string literals, #include "file.h" with #include wxT("file.h")
Will this change in wxWidgets 3.0?
Yes. See answer/quote above.
I have to write some code working with character encoding. Is there a good introduction to the subject to get me started?
First posted at What every developer should know about character encoding.
If you write code that touches a text file, you probably need this.
Lets start off with two key items
1.Unicode does not solve this issue for us (yet).
2.Every text file is encoded. There is no such thing as an unencoded file or a "general" encoding.
And lets add a codacil to this – most Americans can get by without having to take this in to account – most of the time. Because the characters for the first 127 bytes in the vast majority of encoding schemes map to the same set of characters (more accurately called glyphs). And because we only use A-Z without any other characters, accents, etc. – we're good to go. But the second you use those same assumptions in an HTML or XML file that has characters outside the first 127 – then the trouble starts.
The computer industry started with diskspace and memory at a premium. Anyone who suggested using 2 bytes for each character instead of one would have been laughed at. In fact we're lucky that the byte worked best as 8 bits or we might have had fewer than 256 bits for each character. There of course were numerous charactersets (or codepages) developed early on. But we ended up with most everyone using a standard set of codepages where the first 127 bytes were identical on all and the second were unique to each set. There were sets for America/Western Europe, Central Europe, Russia, etc.
And then for Asia, because 256 characters were not enough, some of the range 128 – 255 had what was called DBCS (double byte character sets). For each value of a first byte (in these higher ranges), the second byte then identified one of 256 characters. This gave a total of 128 * 256 additional characters. It was a hack, but it kept memory use to a minimum. Chinese, Japanese, and Korean each have their own DBCS codepage.
And for awhile this worked well. Operating systems, applications, etc. mostly were set to use a specified code page. But then the internet came along. A website in America using an XML file from Greece to display data to a user browsing in Russia, where each is entering data based on their country – that broke the paradigm.
Fast forward to today. The two file formats where we can explain this the best, and where everyone trips over it, is HTML and XML. Every HTML and XML file can optionally have the character encoding set in it's header metadata. If it's not set, then most programs assume it is UTF-8, but that is not a standard and not universally followed. If the encoding is not specified and the program reading the file guess wrong – the file will be misread.
Point 1 – Never treat specifying the encoding as optional when writing a file. Always write it to the file. Always. Even if you are willing to swear that the file will never have characters out of the range 1 – 127.
Now lets' look at UTF-8 because as the standard and the way it works, it gets people into a lot of trouble. UTF-8 was popular for two reasons. First it matched the standard codepages for the first 127 characters and so most existing HTML and XML would match it. Second, it was designed to use as few bytes as possible which mattered a lot back when it was designed and many people were still using dial-up modems.
UTF-8 borrowed from the DBCS designs from the Asian codepages. The first 128 bytes are all single byte representations of characters. Then for the next most common set, it uses a block in the second 128 bytes to be a double byte sequence giving us more characters. But wait, there's more. For the less common there's a first byte which leads to a sersies of second bytes. Those then each lead to a third byte and those three bytes define the character. This goes up to 6 byte sequences. Using the MBCS (multi-byte character set) you can write the equivilent of every unicode character. And assuming what you are writing is not a list of seldom used Chinese characters, do it in fewer bytes.
But here is what everyone trips over – they have an HTML or XML file, it works fine, and they open it up in a text editor. They then add a character that in their text editor, using the codepage for their region, insert a character like ß and save the file. Of course it must be correct – their text editor shows it correctly. But feed it to any program that reads according to the encoding and that is now the first character fo a 2 byte sequence. You either get a different character or if the second byte is not a legal value for that first byte – an error.
Point 2 – Always create HTML and XML in a program that writes it out correctly using the encode. If you must create with a text editor, then view the final file in a browser.
Now, what about when the code you are writing will read or write a file? We are not talking binary/data files where you write it out in your own format, but files that are considered text files. Java, .NET, etc all have character encoders. The purpose of these encoders is to translate between a sequence of bytes (the file) and the characters they represent. Lets take what is actually a very difficlut example – your source code, be it C#, Java, etc. These are still by and large "plain old text files" with no encoding hints. So how do programs handle them? Many assume they use the local code page. Many others assume that all characters will be in the range 0 – 127 and will choke on anything else.
Here's a key point about these text files – every program is still using an encoding. It may not be setting it in code, but by definition an encoding is being used.
Point 3 – Always set the encoding when you read and write text files. Not just for HTML & XML, but even for files like source code. It's fine if you set it to use the default codepage, but set the encoding.
Point 4 – Use the most complete encoder possible. You can write your own XML as a text file encoded for UTF-8. But if you write it using an XML encoder, then it will include the encoding in the meta data and you can't get it wrong. (it also adds the endian preamble to the file.)
Ok, you're reading & writing files correctly but what about inside your code. What there? This is where it's easy – unicode. That's what those encoders created in the Java & .NET runtime are designed to do. You read in and get unicode. You write unicode and get an encoded file. That's why the char type is 16 bits and is a unique core type that is for characters. This you probably have right because languages today don't give you much choice in the matter.
Point 5 – (For developers on languages that have been around awhile) – Always use unicode internally. In C++ this is called wide chars (or something similar). Don't get clever to save a couple of bytes, memory is cheap and you have more important things to do.
Wrapping it up
I think there are two key items to keep in mind here. First, make sure you are taking the encoding in to account on text files. Second, this is actually all very easy and straightforward. People rarely screw up how to use an encoding, it's when they ignore the issue that they get in to trouble.
From Joel Spolsky
The Absolute Minimum Every Software Developer Absolutely, Positively Must Know About Unicode and Character Sets (No Excuses!)
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Unicode.html
As usual, Wikipedia is a good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_encoding
I have a very basic introduction on my blog, which also includes links to in-depth resources if you REALLY want to dig into the subject matter.
http://www.dotnetnoob.com/2011/12/introduction-to-character-encoding.html
I have 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 am creating a coldfusion page, that takes language translation data stored in a table in my database, and makes static js files for each language pairing of english to ___ etc...
I am now starting to work on russian, I was able to get the other languages to work fine..
However, when it saves the file, all the text looks like question marks. Even when I run my translation app, the text for just that language looks like all ?????
I have tried writing it via cffile as utf-8 or ISO-8859-1 but neither seems to get it to display properly.
Any suggestions?
Have you tried ISO-8859-5? I believe it's the encoding that "should" be used for Russian.
By all means do use UTF-8 over any other encoding type. You need to make sure that:
your cfm templates were written to disk with UTF-8 encoding (notepad++ handles that nicely, and so does Eclipse or the new ColdFusion Builder)
your database was created with the proper codepage for nvarchar (and varchar) datatypes
your database connection handles UTF-8
How to go about the last two items depends on your database back-end. Coldfusion is quite agnostic in that regard, as it will happily use any jdbc driver that you may need.
When working in a multi-character set environment, character set conversion issues can occur and it can be difficult to determine where the conversion issue occurred.
There are two categories into which conversion issues can be placed. The first involves sending data in the wrong format to the client API. Although this cannot happen with Unicode APIs, it is possible with all other client APIs and results in garbage data.
The second category of issue involves a character that does not have an equivalent in the final character set, or in one of the intermediate character sets. In this case, a substitution character is used. This is called lossy conversion and can happen with any client API. You can avoid lossy conversions by configuring the database to use UTF-8 for the database character set.
The advantage of UTF-8 over any other encoding is that you can handle any number of languages in the same database / client.
I can't personally reproduce this problem at all. Is the ColdFusion template that is making the call itself UTF-8? (with or without a BOM it matters not for Russian). In any case UTF-8 is absolutely what you should be using. Make sure you get a UTF-8 compliant editor. Which is most things on Mac. On Windows you could use Scite or GVim.
The correct encoding to use in a .js file is whatever encoding the parent page is in. Whilst there are methods to serve JavaScript using a different encoding to the page including it, they don't work on all browsers.
So make sure your web page is being saved and served in an encoding that contains the Russian characters, and then save the .js file using the same encoding. That will be either:
ISO-8859-5. A single-byte encoding with Cyrillic in the high bytes, similar to Windows code page 1251. cp1251 will be the default encoding when you save in a text editor from a Russian install of Windows;
or UTF-8. A multi-byte encoding that contains every character. All modern websites should be using UTF-8.
(ISO-8859-1 is Western European and does not include any Cyrillic. It is similar to code page 1252, the default on a Western Windows install. It's of no use to you.)
So, best is to save both the cf template and the js file as UTF-8, and add <cfprocessingdirective pageencoding="utf-8"> if CF doesn't pick it up automatically.
If you can't control the encoding of the page that includes the script (for example because it's a third party), then you can't use any non-ASCII characters directly. You would have to use JavaScript string literal escapes instead:
var translation_ru= {
launchMyCalendar: '\u0417\u0430\u043f\u0443\u0441\u043a \u041c\u043e\u0439 \u043a\u0430\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0434\u0430\u0440\u044c'
};
when it saves to file it is "·ÐßãáÚ ¼ÞÙ ÚÐÛÕÝÔÐàì" so the charset is wrong
Looks like you've saved as cp1251 (ie. default codepage on a Russian machine) and then copied the file to a Western server where the default codepage is cp1252.
I also just found out that my text editor of choice, textpad, doesn't support unicode.
Yes, that was my reason for no longer using it too. EmEditor (commercial) and Notepad++ (open-source) are good replacements.
How important is file encoding? The default for Notepad++ is ANSI, but would it be better to use UTF-8 or what problems could occur if not using one or the other?
Yes, it would be better if everyone used UTF-8 for all documents always.
Unfortunately, they don't, primarily because Windows text editors (and many other Win tools) default to “ANSI”. This is a misleading name as it is nothing to do with ANSI X3.4 (aka ASCII) or any other ANSI standard, but in fact means the system default code page of the current Windows machine. That default code page can change between machines, or on the same machine, at which point all text files in “ANSI” that have non-ASCII characters like accented letters in will break.
So you should certainly create new files in UTF-8, but you will have to be aware that text files other people give you are likely to be in a motley collection of crappy country-specific code pages.
Microsoft's position has been that users who want Unicode support should use UTF-16LE files; it even, misleadingly, calls this encoding simply “Unicode” in save box encoding menus. MS took this approach because in the early days of Unicode it was believed that this would be the cleanest way of doing it. Since that time:
Unicode was expanded beyond 16-bit code points, removing UTF-16's advantage of each code unit being a code point;
UTF-8 was invented, with the advantage that as well as covering all of Unicode, it's backwards-compatible with 7-bit ASCII (which UTF-16 isn't as it's full of zero bytes) and for this reason it's also typically more compact.
Most of the rest of the world (Mac, Linux, the web in general) has, accordingly, already moved to UTF-8 as a standard encoding, eschewing UTF-16 for file storage or network purposes. Unfortunately Windows remains stuck with the archaic and useless selection of incompatible code pages it had back in the early Windows NT days. There is no sign of this changing in the near future.
If you're sharing files between systems that use differing default encodings, then a Unicode encoding is the way to go. If you don't plan on it, or use only the ASCII set of characters and aren't going to work with encodings that, for whatever reason, modify those (I can't think of any at the moment, but you never know...), you don't really need it.
As an aside, this is the sort of stuff that happens when you don't use a Unicode encoding for files with non-ASCII characters on a system with a different encoding from the one the file was created with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojibake
It is very importaint since your whatevertool will show false chars/whatever if you use the wrong encoding. Try to load a kyrillic file in Notepad without using UTF-8 or so and see a lot of "?" coming up. :)