Can someone please redirect me to some good references about the encoding and decoding in communication and different encoding techniques(unicode, base64, utf7) etc.
Wikipedia is always a good start.
Then there's always Joel Spolsky's article: The Absolute Minimum Every Software Developer Absolutely, Positively Must Know About Unicode and Character Sets (No Excuses!).
Note that the three things you name operate on different levels.
Unicode is a character set: a mapping between characters and numbers (code points).
UTF7 maps between code points and bytes.
base64 maps between bytes and bytes. (It mangles bytes so that they are represented by bytes in the ASCII range.)
The definitions of encoding and decoding are somewhat subjective.
Both are forms of transliteration, being the process of converting from one alphabet to another. ASCII to UTF8, ASCII to base64, etc are all examples of this.
What distinguishes the two is that "encoding" is often used when transliterating from a usable format to a transmission or intermediate format of some kind and decoding is the reverse. This is where the "subjective" bit comes in. ASCII to UTF8 can be viewed as encoding or decoding depending on the context.
Other formats like base64 are used almost universally for transmission only (eg binary data in email) and as such converting to them is almost universally called "encoding" and converting from as "decoding".
The important point to take away from all this is that something like ASCII or UTF8 is not magical in any way. All these formats are simply an agreed-upon encoding of information into a binary format. So ASCII 65 is 'A' for no other reason than that's the standard.
Unicode formats get more interesting because they make the distinction between the code point and the encoding. Unicode defines the code points for each character. The binary data is different for each encoding format. For example, see Unicode Character 'EURO-CURRENCY SIGN' (U+20A0) to see all the different binary values for one code point.
Regarding yours unicode, base64, utf7 (no one uses it, it might be utf8). They are not just "encoding & decoding" but encoding & decoding of text data.
Unicode is the way all real and possible characters are enumerated. It has nothing about encoding itself. UTFXX is set of encoding of unicode (converting code to actual bytes). most popular are UTF8 and UTF16. Very basically UTF8 is ASCII compatible (chars with codes < 128 are represented same way as ASCII), but other characters are represented by 2-3 bytes. UTF16 encode most of characters to 2 bytes.
Base64 has nothing about text data. It encodes generic binary data to text that consists of 64 printable ascii characters. It is used to transfer binary data, UTF8 and UTF16 via Email usually.
Related
I am a very stupid Programme Manager and I have a client requesting us to send in either ASCII or ANSI encoding format.
Our programmers has used Unicode (UTF-16), so my question is if Unicode (UTF-16) is compatible with ASCII or ANSI? Or am I understanding this incorrectly? Are we to change encoding or?
We haven't tried anything yet.
In short: ASCII encoding contains 128 characters. ANSI encoding contains 256 characters. UTF-16 encoding has the capacity for 1,112,064 character codes. There is some nuance such as the bytes used to store each character, but I don't think that is relevant here.
You can certainly convert a UTF-16 document down to ANSI or ASCII encoding, but any characters that are beyond their specification will be lost (probably converted to the 128th or 256th character, respectively, or some sort of null character).
For you, as a manager, there are some questions. At minimum:
Why does the client need this particular encoding? Can it be accommodated in some other way?
Are any characters in your data beyond the scope of ASCII/ANSI. Most (all?) programming languages provide a method to retrieve an integer representation of a character and determine if it is beyond the range of the desired encoding. This could be leveraged to discover how many instances exist of a character not compatible with the desired encoding.
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.
As I understand it, UTF-8 is a superset of ASCII, and therefore includes the control characters which are not used to represent printable characters.
My question is: Are there any bytes (of the 256 different) that are not used by the UTF-8 encoding?
I wondered if you could convert/encode UTF-8 text to binary.
Here my though process:
I have no idea how the UTF-8 text encoding works and how it can use so many characters (only that it uses multiple bytes for characters not in ASCII (Latin-1??)) but I know that ASCII text is valid in UTF-8 so the control characters (bytes 0-30) are not used differently by the UTF-8 encoding but they are at the same time not used for displaying characters, right??
So of the 256 different bytes, only ~230 are used. For a 1000 (binary) long Unicode text there are only 1000^230 different texts? Right?
If that is true, you could convert it to a binary data which is smaller than 1000 bytes.
Wolfram alpha: 1000 bytes of unicode (assumption unicode only uses 230 of the 256 different bytes) --> 496 bytes
Yes, it is possible to devise encodings which are more space-efficient than UTF-8, but you have to weigh the advantages against the disadvantages.
For example, if your primary target is (say) ISO-8859-1, you could map the character codes 0xA0-0xFF to themselves, and only use 0x80-0x9F to select an extension map somewhat vaguely like UTF-8 uses (nearly) all of 0x80-0xFF to encode sequences which can represent all of Unicode > 0x80. You would gain a significant advantage when the majority of your text does not use characters in the ranges 0x80-0x9F or 0x0100-0x1EFFFFFFFF, but correspondingly lose when this is not the case.
Or you could require the user to keep a state variable which tells you which range of characters is currently selected, and have each byte in the stream act as an index into that range. This has significant disadvantages, but used to be how these things were done way back when (witness e.g. ISO-2022).
The original UTF-8 draft before Ken Thompson and Rob Pike famously intervened was probably also somewhat more space-efficient than the final specification, but the changes they introduced had some very attractive properties, trading (I assume) some space efficiency for lack of contextual ambiguity.
I would urge you to read the Wikipedia article about UTF-8 to understand the design desiderata -- the spec is possible to grasp in just a few minutes, although you might want to reserve an hour or more to follow footnotes etc. (The Thompson anecdote is currently footnote #7.)
All in all, unless you are working on space travel or some similarly effeciency-intensive application, losing UTF-8 compatibility is probably not worth the time you have already spent, and you should stop now.
0xF8-0xFF are not valid anywhere in UTF-8, and some other bytes are not valid at certain positions.
The lead byte of a character indicates the number of bytes used to encode the character, and each continuation byte has 10 as its two high order bits. This is so that you can pick any byte within the text and find the start of the character containing it. If you don't mind losing this ability, you could certainly come up with more efficient encoding.
You have to distinguish Characters, Unicode and UTF-8 encoding:
In encodings like ASCII, LATIN-1, etc. there is a one-to-one relation of one character to one number between 0 and 255 so a character can be encoded by exactly one byte (e.g. "A"->65). For decoding such a text you need to know which encoding was used (does 65 really mean "A"?).
To overcome this situation Unicode assigns every Character (including all kinds of special things like control characters, diacritic marks, etc.) a unique number in the range from 0 to 0x10FFFF (so-called Unicode codepoint). As this range does not fit into one byte the question is how to encode. There are several ways to do this, e.g. simplest way would always use 4 bytes for each character. As this consumes a lot of space a more efficient encoding is UTF-8: Here every Unicode codepoint (= Character) is encoded in one, two, three or four bytes (for this encoding not all byte values from 0 to 255 are used but this is only a technical detail).
I have read an article talks about text encoding. It refers that saying that a unicode letter is two bytes is a myth.
It explains that but my english is not good enugh to understand the reasons.
Kindly, any one here can explain that fact if it is true and the reasons? Please ,keep simple English as possible as you can.
It can need more, or less depending on unicode format and what character you wish to represent. At most 4 bytes per character:
Character encoding standards define not only the identity of each
character and its numeric value, or code point, but also how this
value is represented in bits.
The Unicode Standard defines three encoding forms that allow the same
data to be transmitted in a byte, word or double word oriented format
(i.e. in 8, 16 or 32-bits per code unit). All three encoding forms
encode the same common character repertoire and can be efficiently
transformed into one another without loss of data. The Unicode
Consortium fully endorses the use of any of these encoding forms as a
conformant way of implementing the Unicode Standard.
UTF-8 is popular for HTML and similar protocols. UTF-8 is a way of
transforming all Unicode characters into a variable length encoding of
bytes. It has the advantages that the Unicode characters corresponding
to the familiar ASCII set have the same byte values as ASCII, and that
Unicode characters transformed into UTF-8 can be used with much
existing software without extensive software rewrites.
UTF-16 is popular in many environments that need to balance efficient
access to characters with economical use of storage. It is reasonably
compact and all the heavily used characters fit into a single 16-bit
code unit, while all other characters are accessible via pairs of
16-bit code units.
UTF-32 is useful where memory space is no concern, but fixed width,
single code unit access to characters is desired. Each Unicode
character is encoded in a single 32-bit code unit when using UTF-32.
All three encoding forms need at most 4 bytes (or 32-bits) of data for
each character.
See http://www.unicode.org/standard/principles.html
Windows, and many legacy applications, has traditionally used 16 bits (two bytes) to represent unicode characters, but the actual standard is 21 bits (0x000000 to 0x10ffff). That's why there are so many different encodings (UTF-8 and so on). Today the most common internal representation of unicode characters inside of programs should be UTF-32 (32 bits, 4 bytes), while most are stored on disk in UTF-8 format.
For more information about the different unicode encoding schemes see this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Unicode_encodings
I'm trying to understand what the input requirements are for base64 encoding. Nicholas Zakas, who I have tremendous respect for has an article here where he quotes a specification that an error should be thrown if input contains any character with a code higher than 255 Zakas Article on base64
Before even attempting to base64 encode a string, you should check to see if the string contains only ASCII characters. Since base64 encoding requires eight bits per input character, any character with a code higher than 255 cannot be accurately represented. The specification indicates that an error should be thrown in this case:
if (/([^\u0000-\u00ff])/.test(text)){
throw new Error("Can't base64 encode non-ASCII characters.");
}
He provides a link in another separate part of the article to the RFC 3548 but I don't see any input requirements other than:
Implementations MUST reject the encoding if it contains characters
outside the base alphabet when interpreting base encoded data, unless
the specification referring to this document explicitly states
otherwise.
Not sure what "base alphabet" means but perhaps this is what Zakas is referring to. But by saying they must reject the encoding it seems to imply that this is something that has already been encoded as opposed to the input (of course if the input is invalid it will also show up in the encoding so perhaps the point is moot).
A bit confused on what the standard is.
Fundamentally, it's a mistake to talk about "base64 encoding a string" where "string" is meant in terms of text.
Base64 encoding is applied to binary data (a sequence of bytes, or octets if you want to be even more picky), and the result is text. Every character in the output is printable ASCII text. The whole point of base64 is to provide a safe way of converting arbitrary binary data into a text format which can be reliably embedded in other text, transported etc. ASCII is compatible with almost all character sets, so you're very unlikely to be unable to encode ASCII text as part of something else.
When someone talks about "base64 encoding a string" they're really talking about encoding text as binary using some existing encoding (e.g. UTF-8), then applying a base64 encoding to the result. When decoding, you'd need to decode the base64 back to binary, and then decode that binary data with the original encoding, to get the original text.
For me the (first) linked article has a fundamental problem:
Before even attempting to base64 encode a string, you should check to see if the string contains only ASCII characters
You don't base64 encode strings. You base64 encode byte sequences. And when you're dealing with any kind of encoding work, it's extremely important to keep in mind this difference.
Also, his check for 'ASCII' actually lets through everything from 80 to ff, which aren't ASCII - ASCII is only 00 to 7f.
Now, if you have a string which you have checked is pure ASCII, you can then safely treat it as a byte sequence of the ASCII values of the characters in it - but this is a separate earlier step, nothing strictly to do with the act of base64 encoding.
(I should say that I do like his repeated urging for the reader to note that base64 encoding is not in any shape or form encryption)