What are the typical average bytes-per-character rates for different unicode encodings in different languages?
E.g. if I wanted the smallest number of bytes to encode some english text, then on average UTF-8 would be 1-byte per character and UTF-16 would be 2 so I'd pick UTF-8.
If I wanted some Korean text, then UTF-16 might average about 2 per character but UTF-8 might average about 3 (I don't know, I'm just making up some illustrative numbers here).
Which encodings yield the smallest storage requirements for different languages and character sets?
For any given language, your bytes-per-character rates are fairly constant, because most languages are allocated to contiguous code pages. The big exception is accented Latin characters, which are allocated higher in the code space than the unaccented forms. I don't have hard numbers for these.
For languages with contiguous character allocation, there is a table with detailed numbers for various languages on Wikipedia. In general, UTF-8 works well for most small character sets (except the ones allocated on high code pages), and UTF-16 is great for two-byte character sets.
If you need denser compression, you may also want to look at Unicode Technical Note 14, which compares some special-purpose encodings designed to reduce data size for a variety of languages. But these techniques aren't especially common.
If you're really worried about string/character size, have you thought about compressing them? That would automatically reduce the string to it's 'minimal' encoding. It's a layer of headache, especially if you want to do it in memory, and there are plenty of cases in which it wouldn't buy you anything, but encoding, especially, tend to be too general purpose to the level of compactness you seem to be aiming for.
UTF8 is best for any character-set where characters are primarily below U+0800. Otherwise UTF16.
That is, UTF8 for Latin, Greek, Cyrillic, Hebrew and Arabic and a few others. In langs other than Latin, characters will take up the same space as they would in UTF16, but you'll save bytes on punctuation and spacing.
In UTF-16, all the languages that matter (i.e. anything but klingons, elven and other strange things) will be encoded into 2 byte chars.
So the question is to find the languages that will have glyphs that will be 2-bytes or 1-byte sized characters long.
In the Wikipedia page on UTF-8:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utf-8
We see that a character with an unicode index of 0x0800 or more will be at least 3 bytes long in UTF-8.
Knowing that, you just need to look at the code charts on unicode: http://www.unicode.org/charts/
for the languages that comply to your requirements.
:-)
Now, note that, depending on the framework you're using, the choice could well be not yours to do:
On Windows API, Unicode is handled by wchar_t chars, and is UTF-16
On Linux, Unicode is handled by char, and is UTF-8
Java is internally UTF-16, as are most compliant XML parsers
I was told (some tech meeting I was not interested on... sorry...) that UTF-8 was the encoding of choices on Databases.
So, pick up your poison...
:-)
I don't know exact figures, but for Japanese Shift_JIS averages fewer bytes per character than UTF-8, and so does EUC-JP, since they're optimised for Japanese text. However, they don't cover the same space of code points as Unicode, so they might not be correct answers to your question.
UTF-16 is better than UTF-8 for Japanese characters (2 bytes per char as opposed to 3), but worse than UTF-8 if there's a lot of 7-bit chars. It depends on the context - technical text is more likely to contain a lot of chars in the 1-byte range. A classical Japanese text might not have any.
Note that for transport, the encoding doesn't matter much if you can zip (gzip, bz2) the data. Code points for an alphabet in Unicode are close together, so you'd expect common prefixes with very short representations in the compressed data.
UTF-8 is usually good for representation in memory, since it's often more compact than UTF-32 or UTF-16, and is compatible with functions on char* which 'expect' ASCII or ISO-8859-1 NUL-terminated strings. It's useless if you need random access to characters by index, though.
If you don't care about non-BMP characters, UCS-2 is always 2 bytes per character and so offers random access. But that depends what you mean by 'Unicode'.
UTF-8
There is a very good article about unicode on JoelOnSoftware:
The Absolute Minimum Every Software Developer Absolutely, Positively Must Know About Unicode and Character Sets (No Excuses!)
Related
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
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I'm really confused about UTF in Unicode.
there is UTF-8, UTF-16 and UTF-32.
my question is :
what UTF that are support all Unicode blocks ?
What is the best UTF(performance, size, etc), and why ?
What is different between these three UTF ?
what is endianness and byte order marks (BOM) ?
Thanks
what UTF that are support all Unicode blocks ?
All UTF encodings support all Unicode blocks - there is no UTF encoding that can't represent any Unicode codepoint. However, some non-UTF, older encodings, such as UCS-2 (which is like UTF-16, but lacks surrogate pairs, and thus lacks the ability to encode codepoints above 65535/U+FFFF), may not.
What is the best UTF(performance, size, etc), and why ?
For textual data that is mostly English and/or just ASCII, UTF-8 is by far the most space-efficient. However, UTF-8 is sometimes less space-efficient than UTF-16 and UTF-32 where most of the codepoints used are high (such as large bodies of CJK text).
What is different between these three UTF ?
UTF-8 encodes each Unicode codepoint from one to four bytes. The Unicode values 0 to 127, which are the same as they are in ASCII, are encoded like they are in ASCII. Bytes with values 128 to 255 are used for multi-byte codepoints.
UTF-16 encodes each Unicode codepoint in either two bytes (one UTF-16 value) or four bytes (two UTF-16 values). Anything in the Basic Multilingual Plane (Unicode codepoints 0 to 65535, or U+0000 to U+FFFF) are encoded with one UTF-16 value. Codepoints from higher plains use two UTF-16 values, through a technique called 'surrogate pairs'.
UTF-32 is not a variable-length encoding for Unicode; all Unicode codepoint values are encoded as-is. This means that U+10FFFF is encoded as 0x0010FFFF.
what is endianness and byte order marks (BOM) ?
Endianness is how a piece of data, particular CPU architecture or protocol orders values of multi-byte data types. Little-endian systems (such as x86-32 and x86-64 CPUs) put the least-significant byte first, and big-endian systems (such as ARM, PowerPC and many networking protocols) put the most-significant byte first.
In a little-endian encoding or system, the 32-bit value 0x12345678 is stored or transmitted as 0x78 0x56 0x34 0x12. In a big-endian encoding or system, it is stored or transmitted as 0x12 0x34 0x56 0x78.
A byte order mark is used in UTF-16 and UTF-32 to signal which endianness the text is to be interpreted as. Unicode does this in a clever way -- U+FEFF is a valid codepoint, used for the byte order mark, while U+FFFE is not. Therefore, if a file starts with 0xFF 0xFE, it can be assumed that the rest of the file is stored in a little-endian byte ordering.
A byte order mark in UTF-8 is technically possible, but is meaningless in the context of endianness for obvious reasons. However, a stream that begins with the UTF-8 encoded BOM almost certainly implies that it is UTF-8, and thus can be used for identification because of this.
Benefits of UTF-8
ASCII is a subset of the UTF-8 encoding and therefore is a great way to introduce ASCII text into a 'Unicode world' without having to do data conversion
UTF-8 text is the most compact format for ASCII text
Valid UTF-8 can be sorted on byte values and result in sorted codepoints
Benefits of UTF-16
UTF-16 is easier than UTF-8 to decode, even though it is a variable-length encoding
UTF-16 is more space-efficient than UTF-8 for characters in the BMP, but outside ASCII
Benefits of UTF-32
UTF-32 is not variable-length, so it requires no special logic to decode
“Answer me these questions four, as all were answered long before.”
You really should have asked one question, not four. But here are the answers.
All UTF transforms by definition support all Unicode code points. That is something you needn’t worry about. The only problem is that some systems are really UCS-2 yet claim they are UTF-16, and UCS-2 is severely broken in several fundamental ways:
UCS-2 is not a valid Unicode encoding.
UCS-2 supports only ¹⁄₁₇ᵗʰ of Unicode. That is, Plane 0 only, not Planes 1–16.
UCS-2 permits code points that The Unicode Standard guarantees will never be in a valid Unicode stream. These include
all 2,048 UTF-16 surrogates, code points U+D800 through U+DFFF
the 32 non-character code points between U+FDD0 and U+FDEF
both sentinels at U+FFEF and U+FFFF
For what encoding is used internally by seven different programming languages, see slide 7 on Feature Support Summary in my OSCON talk from last week entitled “Unicode Support Shootout”. It varies a great deal.
UTF-8 is the best serialization transform of a stream of logical Unicode code points because, in no particular order:
UTF-8 is the de facto standard Unicode encoding on the web.
UTF-8 can be stored in a null-terminated string.
UTF-8 is free of the vexing BOM issue.
UTF-8 risks no confusion of UCS-2 vs UTF-16.
UTF-8 compacts mainly-ASCII text quite efficiently, so that even Asian texts that are in XML or HTML often wind up being smaller in bytes than UTF-16. This is an important thing to know, because it is a counterintuitive and surprising result. The ASCII markup tags often make up for the extra byte. If you are really worried about storage, you should be using proper text compression, like LZW and related algorithms. Just bzip it.
If need be, it can be roped into use for trans-Unicodian points of arbitrarily large magnitude. For example, MAXINT on a 64-bit machine becomes 13 bytes using the original UTF-8 algorithm. This property is of rare usefulness, though, and must be used with great caution lest it be mistaken for a legitimate UTF-8 stream.
I use UTF-8 whenever I can get away with it.
I have already given properties of UTF-8, so here are some for the other two:
UTF-32 enjoys a singular advantage for internal storage: O(1) access to code point N. That is, constant time access when you need random access. Remember we lived forever with O(N) access in C’s strlen function, so I am not sure how important this is. My impression is that we almost always process our strings in sequential not random order, in which case this ceases to be a concern. Yes, it takes more memory, but only marginally so in the long run.
UTF-16 is a terrible format, having all the disadvantages of UTF-8 and UTF-32 but none of the advantages of either. It is grudgingly true that when properly handled, UTF-16 can certainly be made to work, but doing so takes real effort, and your language may not be there to help you. Indeed, your language is probably going to work against you instead. I’ve worked with UTF-16 enough to know what a royal pain it is. I would stay clear of both these, especially UTF-16, if you possibly have any choice in the matter. The language support is almost never there, because there are massive pods of hysterical porpoises all contending for attention. Even when proper code-point instead of code-unit access mechanisms exist, these are usually awkward to use and lengthy to type, and they are not the default. This leads too easily to bugs that you may not catch until deployment; trust me on this one, because I’ve been there.
That’s why I’ve come to talk about there being a UTF-16 Curse. The only thing worse than The UTF-16 Curse is The UCS-2 Curse.
Endianness and the whole BOM thing are problems that curse both UTF-16 and UTF-32 alike. If you use UTF-8, you will not ever have to worry about these.
I sure do hope that you are using logical (that is, abstract) code points internally with all your APIs, and worrying about serialization only for external interchange alone. Anything that makes you get at code units instead of code points is far far more hassle than it’s worth, no matter whether those code units are 8 bits wide or 16 bits wide. You want a code-point interface, not a code-unit interface. Now that your API uses code points instead of code units, the actual underlying representation no longer matters. It is important that this be hidden.
Category Errors
Let me add that everyone talking about ASCII versus Unicode is making a category error. Unicode is very much NOT “like ASCII but with more characters.” That might describe ISO 10646, but it does not describe Unicode. Unicode is not merely a particular repertoire but rules for handling them. Not just more characters, but rather more characters that have particular rules accompanying them. Unicode characters without Unicode rules are no longer Unicode characters.
If you use an ASCII mindset to handle Unicode text, you will get all kinds of brokenness, again and again. It doesn’t work. As just one example of this, it is because of this misunderstanding that the Python pattern-matching library, re, does the wrong thing completely when matching case-insensitively. It blindly assumes two code points count as the same if both have the same lowercase. That is an ASCII mindset, which is why it fails. You just cannot treat Unicode that way, because if you do you break the rules and it is no longer Unicode. It’s just a mess.
For example, Unicode defines U+03C3 GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA and U+03C2 GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA as case-insensitive versions of each other. (This is called Unicode casefolding.) But since they don’t change when blindly mapped to lowercase and compared, that comparison fails. You just can’t do it that way. You can’t fix it in the general case by switching the lowercase comparison to an uppercase one, either. Using casemapping when you need to use casefolding belies a shakey understanding of the whole works.
(And that’s nothing: Python 2 is broken even worse. I recommend against using Python 2 for Unicode; use Python 3 if you want to do Unicode in Python. For Pythonistas, the solution I recommend for Python’s innumerably many Unicode regex issues is Matthew Barnett’s marvelous regex library for Python 2 and Python 3. It is really quite neat, and it actually gets Unicode casefolding right — amongst many other Unicode things that the standard re gets miserably wrong.)
REMEMBER: Unicode is not just more characters: Unicode is rules for handling more characters. One either learns to work with Unicode, or else one works against it, and if one works against it, then it works against you.
All of them support all Unicode code points.
They have different performance characteristics - for example, UTF-8 is more compact for ASCII characters, whereas UTF-32 makes it easier to deal with the whole of Unicode including values outside the Basic Multilingual Plane (i.e. above U+FFFF). Due to its variable width per character, UTF-8 strings are hard to use to get to a particular character index in the binary encoding - you have scan through. The same is true for UTF-16 unless you know that there are no non-BMP characters.
It's probably easiest to look at the wikipedia articles for UTF-8, UTF-16 and UTF-32
Endianness determines (for UTF-16 and UTF-32) whether the most significant byte comes first and the least significant byte comes last, or vice versa. For example, if you want to represent U+1234 in UTF-16, that can either be { 0x12, 0x34 } or { 0x34, 0x12 }. A byte order mark indicates which endianess you're dealing with. UTF-8 doesn't have different endiannesses, but seeing a UTF-8 BOM at the start of a file is a good indicator that it is UTF-8.
Some good questions here and already a couple good answers. I might be able to add something useful.
As said before, all three cover the full set of possible codepoints, U+0000 to U+10FFFF.
Depends on the text, but here are some details that might be of interest. UTF-8 uses 1 to 4 bytes per char; UTF-16 uses 2 or 4; UTF-32 always uses 4. A useful thing to note is this. If you use UTF-8 then then English text will be encoded with the vast majority of characters in one byte each, but Chinese needs 3 bytes each. Using UTF-16, English and Chinese will both require 2. So basically UTF-8 is a win for English; UTF-16 is a win for Chinese.
The main difference is mentioned in the answer to #2 above, or as Jon Skeet says, see the Wikipedia articles.
Endianness: For UTF-16 and UTF-32 this refers to the order in which the bytes appear; for example in UTF-16, the character U+1234 can be encoded either as 12 34 (big endian), or 34 12 (little endian). The BOM, or byte order mark is interesting. Let's say you have a file encoded in UTF-16, but you don't know whether it is big or little endian, but you notice the first two bytes of the file are FE FF. If this were big-endian the character would be U+FEFF; if little endian, it would signify U+FFFE. But here's the thing: In Unicode the codepoint FFFE is permanently unassigned: there is no character there! Therefore we can tell the encoding must be big-endian. The FEFF character is harmless here; it is the ZERO-WIDTH NO BREAK SPACE (invisible, basically). Similarly if the file began with FF FE we know it is little endian.
Not sure if I added anything to the other answers, but I have found the English vs. Chinese concrete analysis useful in explaining this to others in the past.
One way of looking at it is as size over complexity. Generally they increase in the number of bytes they need to encode text, but decrease in the complexity of decoding the scheme they use to represent characters. Therefore, UTF-8 is usually small but can be complex to decode, whereas UTF-32 takes up more bytes but is easy to decode (but is rarely used, UTF-16 being more common).
With this in mind UTF-8 is often chosen for network transmission, as it has smaller size. Whereas UTF-16 is chosen where easier decoding is more important than storage size.
BOMs are intended as information at the beginning of files which describes which encoding has been used. This information is often missing though.
Joel Spolsky wrote a nice introductory article about Unicode:
The Absolute Minimum Every Software Developer Absolutely, Positively Must Know About Unicode and Character Sets (No Excuses!)
This question already has answers here:
What is the difference between UTF-8 and Unicode?
(18 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
Consider:
Is it true that unicode=utf16?
Many are saying Unicode is a standard, not an encoding, but most editors support save as Unicode encoding actually.
As Rasmus states in his article "The difference between UTF-8 and Unicode?":
If asked the question, "What is the difference between UTF-8 and
Unicode?", would you confidently reply with a short and precise
answer? In these days of internationalization all developers should be
able to do that. I suspect many of us do not understand these concepts
as well as we should. If you feel you belong to this group, you should
read this ultra short introduction to character sets and encodings.
Actually, comparing UTF-8 and Unicode is like comparing apples and
oranges:
UTF-8 is an encoding - Unicode is a character
set
A character set is a list of characters with unique numbers (these
numbers are sometimes referred to as "code points"). For example, in
the Unicode character set, the number for A is 41.
An encoding on the other hand, is an algorithm that translates a
list of numbers to binary so it can be stored on disk. For example
UTF-8 would translate the number sequence 1, 2, 3, 4 like this:
00000001 00000010 00000011 00000100
Our data is now translated into binary and can now be saved to
disk.
All together now
Say an application reads the following from the disk:
1101000 1100101 1101100 1101100 1101111
The app knows this data represent a Unicode string encoded with
UTF-8 and must show this as text to the user. First step, is to
convert the binary data to numbers. The app uses the UTF-8 algorithm
to decode the data. In this case, the decoder returns this:
104 101 108 108 111
Since the app knows this is a Unicode string, it can assume each
number represents a character. We use the Unicode character set to
translate each number to a corresponding character. The resulting
string is "hello".
Conclusion
So when somebody asks you "What is the difference between UTF-8 and
Unicode?", you can now confidently answer short and precise:
UTF-8 (Unicode Transformation Format) and Unicode cannot be compared. UTF-8 is an encoding
used to translate numbers into binary data. Unicode is a character set
used to translate characters into numbers.
most editors support save as ‘Unicode’ encoding actually.
This is an unfortunate misnaming perpetrated by Windows.
Because Windows uses UTF-16LE encoding internally as the memory storage format for Unicode strings, it considers this to be the natural encoding of Unicode text. In the Windows world, there are ANSI strings (the system codepage on the current machine, subject to total unportability) and there are Unicode strings (stored internally as UTF-16LE).
This was all devised in the early days of Unicode, before we realised that UCS-2 wasn't enough, and before UTF-8 was invented. This is why Windows's support for UTF-8 is all-round poor.
This misguided naming scheme became part of the user interface. A text editor that uses Windows's encoding support to provide a range of encodings will automatically and inappropriately describe UTF-16LE as “Unicode”, and UTF-16BE, if provided, as “Unicode big-endian”.
(Other editors that do encodings themselves, like Notepad++, don't have this problem.)
If it makes you feel any better about it, ‘ANSI’ strings aren't based on any ANSI standard, either.
It's not that simple.
UTF-16 is a 16-bit, variable-width encoding. Simply calling something "Unicode" is ambiguous, since "Unicode" refers to an entire set of standards for character encoding. Unicode is not an encoding!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode#Unicode_Transformation_Format_and_Universal_Character_Set
and of course, the obligatory Joel On Software - The Absolute Minimum Every Software Developer Absolutely, Positively Must Know About Unicode and Character Sets (No Excuses!) link.
There's a lot of misunderstanding being displayed here. Unicode isn't an encoding, but the Unicode standard is devoted primarily to encoding anyway.
ISO 10646 is the international character set you (probably) care about. It defines a mapping between a set of named characters (e.g., "Latin Capital Letter A" or "Greek small letter alpha") and a set of code points (a number assigned to each -- for example, 61 hexadecimal and 3B1 hexadecimal for those two respectively; for Unicode code points, the standard notation would be U+0061 and U+03B1).
At one time, Unicode defined its own character set, more or less as a competitor to ISO 10646. That was a 16-bit character set, but it was not UTF-16; it was known as UCS-2. It included a rather controversial technique to try to keep the number of necessary characters to a minimum (Han Unification -- basically treating Chinese, Japanese and Korean characters that were quite a bit alike as being the same character).
Since then, the Unicode consortium has tacitly admitted that that wasn't going to work, and now concentrate primarily on ways to encode the ISO 10646 character set. The primary methods are UTF-8, UTF-16 and UCS-4 (aka UTF-32). Those (except for UTF-8) also have LE (little endian) and BE (big-endian) variants.
By itself, "Unicode" could refer to almost any of the above (though we can probably eliminate the others that it shows explicitly, such as UTF-8). Unqualified use of "Unicode" probably happens the most often on Windows, where it will almost certainly refer to UTF-16. Early versions of Windows NT adopted Unicode when UCS-2 was current. After UCS-2 was declared obsolete (around Win2k, if memory serves), they switched to UTF-16, which is the most similar to UCS-2 (in fact, it's identical for characters in the "basic multilingual plane", which covers a lot, including all the characters for most Western European languages).
UTF-16 and UTF-8 are both encodings of Unicode. They are both Unicode; one is not more Unicode than the other.
Don't let an unfortunate historical artifact from Microsoft confuse you.
The development of Unicode was aimed
at creating a new standard for mapping
the characters in a great majority of
languages that are being used today,
along with other characters that are
not that essential but might be
necessary for creating the text. UTF-8
is only one of the many ways that you
can encode the files because there are
many ways you can encode the
characters inside a file into Unicode.
Source:
http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-unicode-and-utf-8/
In addition to Trufa's comment, Unicode explicitly isn't UTF-16. When they were first looking into Unicode, it was speculated that a 16-bit integer might be enough to store any code, but in practice that turned out not to be the case. However, UTF-16 is another valid encoding of Unicode - alongside the 8-bit and 32-bit variants - and I believe is the encoding that Microsoft use in memory at runtime on the NT-derived operating systems.
Let's start from keeping in mind that data is stored as bytes; Unicode is a character set where characters are mapped to code points (unique integers), and we need something to translate these code points data into bytes. That's where UTF-8 comes in so called encoding – simple!
It's weird. Unicode is a standard, not an encoding. As it is possible to specify the endianness I guess it's effectively UTF-16 or maybe 32.
Where does this menu provide from?
Could anyone give me a concise definitions of
Unicode
UTF7
UTF8
UTF16
UTF32
Codepages
How they differ from Ascii/Ansi/Windows 1252
I'm not after wikipedia links or incredible detail, just some brief information on how and why the huge variations in Unicode have come about and why you should care as a programmer.
This is a good start: The Absolute Minimum Every Software Developer Absolutely, Positively Must Know About Unicode and Character Sets (No Excuses!)
If you want a really brief introduction:
Unicode in 5 Minutes
Or if you are after one-liners:
Unicode: a mapping of characters to integers ("code points") in the range 0 through 1,114,111; covers pretty much all written languages in use
UTF7: an encoding of code points into a byte stream with the high bit clear; in general do not use
UTF8: an encoding of code points into a byte stream where each character may take one, two, three or four bytes to represent; should be your primary choice of encoding
UTF16: an encoding of code points into a word stream (16-bit units) where each character may take one or two words (two or four bytes) to represent
UTF32: an encoding of code points into a stream of 32-bit units where each character takes exactly one unit (four bytes); sometimes used for internal representation
Codepages: a system in DOS and Windows whereby characters are assigned to integers, and an associated encoding; each covers only a subset of languages. Note that these assignments are generally different than the Unicode assignments
ASCII: a very common assignment of characters to integers, and the direct encoding into bytes (all high bit clear); the assignment is a subset of Unicode, and the encoding a subset of UTF-8
ANSI: a standards body
Windows 1252: A commonly used codepage; it is similar to ISO-8859-1, or Latin-1, but not the same, and the two are often confused
Why do you care? Because without knowing the character set and encoding in use, you don't really know what characters a given byte stream represents. For example, the byte 0xDE could encode
Þ (LATIN CAPITAL LETTER THORN)
fi (LATIN SMALL LIGATURE FI)
ή (GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH TONOS)
or 13 other characters, depending on the encoding and character set used.
As well as the oft-referenced Joel one, I have my own article which looks at it from a .NET-centric viewpoint, just for variety...
Yea I got some insight but it might be wrong, however it's helped me to understand it.
Let's just take some text. It's stored in the computers ram as a series of bytes, the codepage is simply the mapping table between the bytes and characters you and i read. So something like notepad comes along with its codepage and translates the bytes to your screen and you see a bunch of garbage, upside down question marks etc. This does not mean your data is garbled only that the application reading the bytes is not using the correct codepage. Some applications are smarter at detecting the correct codepage to use than others and some streams of bytes in memory contain a BOM which stands for a Byte Order Mark and this can declare the correct codepage to use.
UTF7, 8 16 etc are all just different codepages using different formats.
The same file stored as bytes using different codepages will be of a different filesize because the bytes are stored differently.
They also don't really differ from windows 1252 as that's just another codepage.
For a better smarter answer try one of the links.
Here, read this wonderful explanation from the Joel himself.
The Absolute Minimum Every Software Developer Absolutely, Positively Must Know About Unicode and Character Sets (No Excuses!)
Others have already pointed out good enough references to begin with. I'm not listing a true Dummy's guide, but rather some pointers from the Unicode Consortium page. You'll find some more nitty-gritty reasons for the usage of different encodings at the Unicode Consortium pages.
The Unicode FAQ is a good enough place to answer some (not all) of your queries.
A more succinct answer on why Unicode exists, is present in the Newcomer's section of the Unicode website itself:
Unicode provides a unique number for
every character, no matter what the
platform, no matter what the program,
no matter what the language.
As far as the technical reasons for usage of UTF-8, UTF-16 or UTF-32 are concerned, the answer lies in the Technical Introduction to Unicode:
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 popular 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.
A general thumb rule is to use UTF-8 when the predominant languages supported by your application are spoken west of the Indus river, UTF-16 for the opposite (east of the Indus), and UTF-32 when you are concerned about utilizing characters with uniform storage.
By the way UTF-7 is not a Unicode standard and was designed primarily for use in mail applications.
I'm not after wikipedia links or incredible detail, just some brief information on how and why the huge variations in Unicode have come about and why you should care as a programmer.
First of all, there aren't "variations of unicode". Unicode is a standard, the standard, to assign code points (integers) to characters. UTF8 is the most popular way to represent those integers as bytes!
Why should you care as a programmer?
It's fun to understand this!
If you don't have basic understanding of encodings, you can easily produce buggy code.
Example: You receive a ByteArray myByteArray from somewhere and you know it represents characters. You then run myByteArray.toString() and you get the string Hello. Your program works! One day after shiping your code your german customer calls: "We have a problem, äöü are not displayed correctly!". You start debugging the code, feeling pretty lost without a basic understanding of encodings. However, with the understanding of encodings you know that the error probably was this: When running myByteArray.toString(), your program assumed the string was encoded with the default system encoding. But maybe it wasn't! Maybe it was UTF8 and your system is LATIN-SOMETHING and so you should have ran myByteArray.toString("UTF8") instead!
Resources:
I would NOT recommend Joel's article as suggested by others. It's a long article with a lot of irrelevant information. I read it a couple of years back and the essence of it didn't stick to my brain since there are so many unimportant details.
As already mentioned http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Unicode_In_5_Minutes is a great place to go for to grasp the essence of unicode.
If you want to actually understand variable length encodings like UTF8 I'd recommend https://www.tsmean.com/articles/encoding/unicode-and-utf-8-tutorial-for-dummies/.
If I understand correctly, UTF-32 can handle every character in the universe. So can UTF-16, through the use of surrogate pairs. So is there any good reason to use UTF-32 instead of UTF-16?
In UTF-32 a unicode character would always be represented by 4 bytes so parsing code would be easier to write than that of a UTF-16 string because in UTF-16 a character is represented by varying number of bytes. On the downside a UTF-32 chatacter would always require 4 bytes which can be wasteful if you are working mostly with say english characters. So its a design choice depending upon your requirements whether to use UTF-16 or UTF-32.
Someone might prefer to deal with UTF-32 instead of UTF-16 because dealing with surrogate pairs is pretty much always handling 'special-cases', and having to deal with those special cases means you have areas where bugs may creep in because you deal with them incorrectly (or more likely just forget to deal with them at all).
If the increased memory usage of UTF-32 is not an issue, the reduced complexity might be enough of an advantage to choose it.
Here is a good documentation from The Unicode Consortium too.
Comparison of the Advantages of UTF-32, UTF-16, and UTF-8
Copyright © 1991–2009 Unicode, Inc. The Unicode Standard, Version 5.2
On the face of it, UTF-32 would seem to be the obvious choice of Unicode encoding forms for an internal processing code because it is a fixed-width encoding form. It can be conformantly bound to the C and C++ wchar_t, which means that such programming languages may offer built-in support and ready-made string APIs that programmers can take advan- tage of. However, UTF-16 has many countervailing advantages that may lead implementers to choose it instead as an internal processing code.
While all three encoding forms need at most 4 bytes (or 32 bits) of data for each character, in practice UTF-32 in almost all cases for real data sets occupies twice the storage that UTF-16 requires. Therefore, a common strategy is to have internal string storage use UTF-16 or UTF-8 but to use UTF-32 when manipulating individual characters.
UTF-32 Versus UTF-16. On average, more than 99 percent of all UTF-16 data is expressed using single code units. This includes nearly all of the typical characters that software needs to handle with special operations on text—for example, format control characters. As a consequence, most text scanning operations do not need to unpack UTF-16 surrogate pairs at all, but rather can safely treat them as an opaque part of a character string.
For many operations, UTF-16 is as easy to handle as UTF-32, and the performance of UTF- 16 as a processing code tends to be quite good. UTF-16 is the internal processing code of choice for a majority of implementations supporting Unicode. Other than for Unix plat- forms, UTF-16 provides the right mix of compact size with the ability to handle the occa- sional character outside the BMP.
UTF-32 has somewhat of an advantage when it comes to simplicity of software coding design and maintenance. Because the character handling is fixed width, UTF-32 processing does not require maintaining branches in the software to test and process the double code unit elements required for supplementary characters by UTF-16. Conversely, 32-bit indices into large tables are not particularly memory efficient. To avoid the large memory penalties of such indices, Unicode tables are often handled as multistage tables (see “Multistage Tables” in Section 5.1, Transcoding to Other Standards). In such cases, the 32-bit code point values are sliced into smaller ranges to permit segmented access to the tables. This is true even in typical UTF-32 implementations.
The performance of UTF-32 as a processing code may actually be worse than the perfor- mance of UTF-16 for the same data, because the additional memory overhead means that cache limits will be exceeded more often and memory paging will occur more frequently. For systems with processor designs that impose penalties for 16-bit aligned access but have very large memories, this effect may be less noticeable.
In any event, Unicode code points do not necessarily match user expectations for “characters.” For example, the following are not represented by a single code point: a combining character sequence such as ; a conjoining jamo sequence for Korean; or the Devanagari conjunct “ksha.” Because some Unicode text pro- cessing must be aware of and handle such sequences of characters as text elements, the fixed-width encoding form advantage of UTF-32 is somewhat offset by the inherently vari- able-width nature of processing text elements. See Unicode Technical Standard #18, “Uni- code Regular Expressions,” for an example where commonly implemented processes deal with inherently variable-width text elements owing to user expectations of the identity of a “character.”
UTF-8. UTF-8 is reasonably compact in terms of the number of bytes used. It is really only at a significant size disadvantage when used for East Asian implementations such as Chi- nese, Japanese, and Korean, which use Han ideographs or Hangul syllables requiring three- byte code unit sequences in UTF-8. UTF-8 is also significantly less efficient in terms of pro- cessing than the other encoding forms.
Binary Sorting. A binary sort of UTF-8 strings gives the same ordering as a binary sort of Unicode code points. This is obviously the same order as for a binary sort of UTF-32 strings.
General Structure
All three encoding forms give the same results for binary string comparisons or string sort- ing when dealing only with BMP characters (in the range U+0000..U+FFFF). However, when dealing with supplementary characters (in the range U+10000..U+10FFFF), UTF-16 binary order does not match Unicode code point order. This can lead to complications when trying to interoperate with binary sorted lists—for example, between UTF-16 sys- tems and UTF-8 or UTF-32 systems. However, for data that is sorted according to the con- ventions of a specific language or locale rather than using binary order, data will be ordered the same, regardless of the encoding form.
Short answer: no.
Longer answer: yes, for compatibility with other things that didn't get the memo.
Less sarcastic answer: When you care more about speed of indexing than about space usage, or as an intermediate format of some sort, or on machines where alignment issues were more important than cache issues, or...
UTF-8 can also represent any unicode character!
If your text is mostly english, you can save a lot of space by using utf-8, but indexing characters is not O(1), because some characters take up more than just one byte.
If space is not as important to your situation as speed is, utf-32 would suit you better, because indexing is O(1)
UTF-16 can be better than utf-8 for non-english text because in utf-8 you have a situation where some characters take up 3 bytes, where as in utf16 they'd only take up two bytes.
There are probably a few good reasons, but one would be to speed up indexing / searching, i.e. in databases and the like.
With UTF-32 you know that each character is 4 bytes. With UTF-16 you don't know what length any particular character will be.
For example, you have a function that returns the nth char of a string:
char getChar(int index, String s );
If you are coding in a language that has direct memory access, say C, then in UTF-32 this function may be as simple as some pointer arithmatic (s+(4*index)), which would be some amounts O(1).
If you are using UTF-16 though, you would have to walk the string, decoding as you went, which would be O(n).
In general, you just use the string datatype/encoding of the underlying platform, which is often (Windows, Java, Cocoa...) UTF-16 and sometimes UTF-8 or UTF-32. This is mostly for historical reasons; there is little difference between the three Unicode encodings: all three are well-defined, fast and robust, and all of them can encode every Unicode code point sequence. The unique feature of UTF-32 that it is a fixed-width encoding (meaning that each code point is represented by exactly one code unit) is of little use in practice: Your memory management layer needs to know about the number and width of code units, and users are interested in abstract characters and graphemes. As mentioned by the Unicode standard, Unicode applications have to deal with combined characters, ligatures and so on anyway and the handling of surrogate pairs, despite being conceptually different, can be done within the same technical framework.
If I were to reinvent the world, I'd probably go for UTF-32 because it is simply the least complex encoding, but as it stands the differences are too small to be of practical concern.