This format compresses Unicode into 8-bit format, preserving most of ASCII, but using some of the control codes as commands for the decoder. A: That depends on the circumstances: Of these four approaches, d uses the least space, but cannot be used transparently in most 8-bit environments.
A: All four require that the receiver can understand that format, but a is considered one of the three equivalent Unicode Encoding Forms and therefore standard. The use of b , or c out of their given context would definitely be considered non-standard, but could be a good solution for internal data transmission. The use of SCSU is itself a standard for compressed data streams but few general purpose receivers support SCSU, so it is again most useful in internal data transmission.
A: UTF-8 is the byte-oriented encoding form of Unicode. For details of its definition, see Section 2. Make sure you refer to the latest version of the Unicode Standard, as the Unicode Technical Committee has tightened the definition of UTF-8 over time to more strictly enforce unique sequences and to prohibit encoding of certain invalid characters. Q: Is the UTF-8 encoding scheme the same irrespective of whether the underlying processor is little endian or big endian?
A: Yes. Since UTF-8 is interpreted as a sequence of bytes, there is no endian problem as there is for encoding forms that use bit or bit code units. A: There is only one definition of UTF As one 4-byte sequence or as two separate 3-byte sequences?
A: The definition of UTF-8 requires that supplementary characters those using surrogate pairs in UTF be encoded with a single 4-byte sequence. However, there is a widespread practice of generating pairs of 3-byte sequences in older software, especially software which pre-dates the introduction of UTF or that is interoperating with UTF environments under particular constraints. Such an encoding is not conformant to UTF-8 as defined. When using CESU-8, great care must be taken that data is not accidentally treated as if it was UTF-8, due to the similarity of the formats.
A different issue arises if an unpaired surrogate is encountered when converting ill-formed UTF data. By representing such an unpaired surrogate on its own as a 3-byte sequence, the resulting UTF-8 data stream would become ill-formed.
While it faithfully reflects the nature of the input, Unicode conformance requires that encoding form conversion always results in a valid data stream. Therefore a converter must treat this as an error. A: UTF uses a single bit code unit to encode the most common 63K characters, and a pair of bit code units, called surrogates, to encode the 1M less commonly used characters in Unicode. Originally, Unicode was designed as a pure bit encoding, aimed at representing all modern scripts.
Ancient scripts were to be represented with private-use characters. Over time, and especially after the addition of over 14, composite characters for compatibility with legacy sets, it became clear that bits were not sufficient for the user community. Out of this arose UTF A: Surrogates are code points from two special ranges of Unicode values, reserved for use as the leading, and trailing values of paired code units in UTF They are called surrogates, since they do not represent characters directly, but only as a pair.
A: The Unicode Standard used to contain a short algorithm, now there is just a bit distribution table.
Here are three short code snippets that translate the information from the bit distribution table into C code that will convert to and from UTF The next snippet does the same for the low surrogate. Finally, the reverse, where hi and lo are the high and low surrogate, and C the resulting character.
A caller would need to ensure that C, hi, and lo are in the appropriate ranges. A: There is a much simpler computation that does not try to follow the bit distribution table. They are well acquainted with the problems that variable-width codes have caused. In SJIS, there is overlap between the leading and trailing code unit values, and between the trailing and single code unit values. This causes a number of problems: It causes false matches.
It prevents efficient random access. To know whether you are on a character boundary, you have to search backwards to find a known boundary. It makes the text extremely fragile. If a unit is dropped from a leading-trailing code unit pair, many following characters can be corrupted. In UTF, the code point ranges for high and low surrogates, as well as for single units are all completely disjoint.
None of these problems occur: There are no false matches. The location of the character boundary can be directly determined from each code unit value. The vast majority of SJIS characters require 2 units, but characters using single units occur commonly and often have special importance, for example in file names.
With UTF, relatively few characters require 2 units. The vast majority of characters in common use are single code units. Certain documents, of course, may have a higher incidence of surrogate pairs, just as phthisique is an fairly infrequent word in English, but may occur quite often in a particular scholarly text.
Both Unicode and ISO have policies in place that formally limit future code assignment to the integer range that can be expressed with current UTF 0 to 1,, Even if other encoding forms i. Over a million possible codes is far more than enough for the goal of Unicode of encoding characters, not glyphs. Unicode is not designed to encode arbitrary data.
A: Unpaired surrogates are invalid in UTFs. A: Not at all. Noncharacters are valid in UTFs and must be properly converted. For more details on the definition and use of noncharacters, as well as their correct representation in each UTF, see the Noncharacters FAQ. Q: Because most supplementary characters are uncommon, does that mean I can ignore them? A: Most supplementary characters expressed with surrogate pairs in UTF are not too common. However, that does not mean that supplementary characters should be neglected.
Notice how some characters are represented as just one byte, while others use more. Why would UTF-8 convert some characters to one byte, and others up to four bytes? In short, to save memory. By using less space to represent more common characters i. Spatial efficiency is a key advantage of UTF-8 encoding. If instead every Unicode character was represented by four bytes, a text file written in English would be four times the size of the same file encoded with UTF UTF-8 is the most common character encoding method used on the internet today, and is the default character set for HTML5.
Text files encoded with UTF-8 must indicate this to the software processing it. In HTML files, you might see a string of code like the following near the top:. These methods differ in the number of bytes they need to store a character.
UTF-8 encodes a character into a binary string of one, two, three, or four bytes. UTF encodes a Unicode character into a string of either two or four bytes. This distinction is evident from their names.
In UTF-8, the smallest binary representation of a character is one byte, or eight bits. In UTF, the smallest binary representation of a character is two bytes, or sixteen bits. However, they are not compatible with each other. These systems use different algorithms to map code points to binary strings, so the binary output for any given character will look different from both methods:.
UTF must encode these same characters in either two or four bytes. If a website uses a language with characters farther back in the Unicode library, UTF-8 will encode all characters as four bytes, whereas UTF might encode many of the same characters as only two bytes. Originally published Aug 10, AM, updated November 02 Logo - Full Color.
Contact Sales. Overview of all products. Marketing Hub Marketing automation software. Service Hub Customer service software. CMS Hub Content management system software. Operations Hub Operations software. App Marketplace Connect your favorite apps to HubSpot.
Why HubSpot? Marketing Sales Service Website. Subscribe to Our Blog Stay up to date with the latest marketing, sales, and service tips and news.
Thank You! You have been subscribed. Start free or get a demo. All other Unicode transformation formats use variable-length encodings. The UTF form of a character is a direct representation of its codepoint. For storage, you may want consider storage formats or compression, depending on environment, the speed of the components, the frequency the strings are accessed and other factors.
Optimisation is rarely done on one factor alone. Combining characters, canonical equivalence, joy. There's a reason that very few platforms and applications use UTF -- the benefits generally do not outweigh the costs. So there are points for and against. Obviously accepting the necessity for byte-order handling. Show 1 more comment. UTF-8 works well on almost every recent software, even on Windows.
In what language? I don't understand your point. Or maybe someone deleted his comment. Dudu Dudu 1, 12 12 silver badges 13 13 bronze badges. I disagree with "Don't worry too much about those characters, as they won't make your software look bad if you didn't handle them properly". Bugs are one thing; intentionally not supporting the whole of UTF is not a bug. Sign up or log in Sign up using Google.
Sign up using Facebook. Sign up using Email and Password. Post as a guest Name. Email Required, but never shown. The Overflow Blog. Podcast Explaining the semiconductor shortage, and how it might end.
0コメント