I have some ASCII-encoded files containing ascii representations of individual Unicode characters like ..., --, and so on that I'd like to convert to e.g. Unicode ellipsis and en-dash symbols for display purposes. This could be as simple as a simple replace filter over all such mappings (in the right order, to catch things like --- -> — and -- -> –, of course). (note: there are more than just those)
Does there exist a database of all such conversions somewhere? I assume the inverse must exist somehow to be able to gracefully convert unicode to plaintext whenever possible, e.g. … -> ....
It doesn't have to be extremely accurate or anything as long as the conversion is appropriate in most cases and makes sense. The output will be just be displayed to the user and won't be further processed. I could just compile a list myself as I go but it would be nice to save time and avoid duplicating effort if it has already been done.
Thanks!
A comprehensive list isn't a very good idea as there are a lot of Unicode characters that exist for compatibility, or are poorly supported (see my comment). Instead, you probably want to use a curated list/library like SmartyPants (ports/alternatives can be found for most other languages).
Related
I am taking user input in an application I am writing and would like to expand escape sequences that the user enters.
For example if the user enters \\n it will be interpreted into a str \\\\n. I want to, in a general way, interpret that string (into a newline) and similar ones.
I could of course use String::replace() on the most essential ones and live without the rest, but I would prefer a general solution that also handles hex escapes (\x61 is a).
Escapes are usually handled by the lexer / parser (basically they're part of the language grammar), I don't think there's an stdlib function which would manage them as it would be done as a much lower level.
Furthermore, escapes tend to be highly language-specific, in possibly unexpected ways. Rust has a singularly small list of escape sequences, which is probably desirable compared to the garbage available from C's, but I still do not know that you'd want to allow e.g. arbitrary hex or unicode escape sequences.
I would therefore recommend setting up your own explicitly supported list of escapes, though if you really do not want to there are probably third-party packages which can help you.
In Python3, all strings are Unicode so you only need to do decode or encode when doing I/O operation, and in the main part of you code, you only do with Unicode.
So, I want to know that in Go, should I do the same? Should I convert all the strings to []rune at the input and all my functions only receive []rune type?
Because I'm new to Go, so I don't know how many 3rd party library support rune as string. If I use rune all the way in my code, when I need to interact with a 3rd party library, will the overhead of converting rune to string be a problem?
Should I ALWAYS use rune instead of string except doing I/O
There are several very useful packages that work with strings which you would find awkward to work with if your data is in arrays (or slices) of runes.
There are many cases that I have to get the character at a index,
It isn't safe to do that in general, partly because of combining characters but also because strings (or Unicode text in general) can contain many other difficult situations - perhaps a mix of left-to-right and right-to-left text etc.
Normalizing the text to one of the several normal forms might help deal with most combining characters but there will be some combinations that don't reduce to a single rune.
I'm writing something like a parser to parse the text with emoji
Unicode emoticons are just another codepoint - so can be treated like most ordinary characters.
In many cases it is probably best to use the range operator to walk through a string.
If you wanted to, for example, replace all 😀 with :-), this could perhaps be handled using strings.Replace() or by using for ... range with strings.Builder.
For me the most persuasive argument is that once you venture outside of ASCII, text is weird, Unicode is almost unfathomably weird, plumbing its depths is something best left to experts who spend their lives grappling with its madness. If you want to spend your time on business-end features that usually more clearly matter to you, your business and customers, use standard packages.
Useful references:
Strings, bytes, runes and characters in Go. Rob Pike. 23 October 2013
Package unicode. Go authors.
Dark corners of Unicode. Eevee. Sep 12, 2015
Unicode is kind of insane. Ben Frederickson. 26 May 2015
The Absolute Minimum Every Software Developer Absolutely, Positively Must Know About Unicode and Character Sets (No Excuses!). Joel Spolsky. October 8, 2003
I have a legacy app in Perl processing XML encoded in UTF-8 most likely and which needs to store some data of that XML in some database, which uses windows-1252 for historical reasons. Yes, this setup can't support all possible characters of the Unicode standard, but in practice I don't need to anyway and can try to be reasonable compatible.
The specific problem currently is a file containing LATIN SMALL LETTER U, COMBINING DIAERESIS (U+0075 U+0308), which makes Perl break the existing encoding of the Unicode string to windows-1252 with the following exception:
"\x{0308}" does not map to cp1252
I was able to work around that problem using Unicode::Normalize::NFKC, which creates the character U+00FC (ü), which perfectly fine maps to windows-1252. That lead to some other problem of course, e.g. in case of the character VULGAR FRACTION ONE HALF (½, U+00BD), because NFKC creates DIGIT ONE, FRACTION SLASH, DIGIT TWO (1/2, U+0031 U+2044 U+0032) for that and Perl dies again:
"\x{2044}" does not map to cp1252
According to normalization rules, this is perfectly fine for NFKC. I used that because I thought it would give me the most compatible result, but that was wrong. Using NFC instead fixed both problems, as both characters provide a normalization compatible with windows-1252 in that case.
This approach gets additionally problematic for characters for which a normalization compatible with windows-1252 is available in general, only different from NFC. One example is LATIN SMALL LIGATURE FI (fi, U+FB01). According to it's normalization rules, it's representation after NFC is incompatible with windows-1252, while using NFKC this time results in two characters compatible with windows-1252: fi (U+0066 U+0069).
My current approach is to simply try encoding as windows-1252 as is, if that fails I'm using NFC and try again, if that fails I'm using NFKC and try again and if that fails I'm giving up for now. This works in the cases I'm currently dealing with, but obviously fails if all three characters of my examples above are present in a string at the same time. There's always one character then which results in windows-1252-incompatible output, regardless the order of NFC and NFKC. The only question is which character breaks when.
BUT the important point is that each character by itself could be normalized to something being compatible with windows-1252. It only seems that there's no one-shot-solution.
So, is there some API I'm missing, which already converts in the most backwards compatible way?
If not, what's the approach I would need to implement myself to support all the above characters within one string?
Sounds like I would need to process each string Unicode-character by Unicode-character, normalize individually with what is most compatible with windows-1252 and than concatenate the results again. Is there some incremental Unicode-character parser available which deals with combining characters and stuff already? Does a simple Unicode-character based regular expression handles this already?
Unicode::Normalize provides additional functions to work on partial strings and such, but I must admit that I currently don't fully understand their purpose. The examples focus on concatenation as well, but from my understanding I first need some parsing to be able to normalize individual characters differently.
I don't think you're missing an API because a best-effort approach is rather involved. I'd try something like the following:
Normalize using NFC. This combines decomposed sequences like LATIN SMALL LETTER U, COMBINING DIAERESIS.
Extract all codepoints which aren't combining marks using the regex /\PM/g. This throws away all combining marks remaining after NFC conversion which can't be converted to Windows-1252 anyway. Then for each code point:
If the codepoint can be converted to Windows-1252, do so.
Otherwise try to normalize the codepoint with NFKC. If the NFKC mapping differs from the input, apply all steps recursively on the resulting string. This handles things like ligatures.
As a bonus: If the codepoint is invariant under NFKC, convert to NFD and try to convert the first codepoint of the result to Windows-1252. This converts characters like Ĝ to G.
Otherwise ignore the character.
There are of course other approaches that convert unsupported characters to ones that look similar but they require to create mappings manually.
Since it seems that you can convert individual characters as needed (to cp-1252 encoding), one way is to process character by character, as proposed, once a word fails the procedure.
The \X in Perl's regex matches a logical Unicode character, an extended grapheme cluster, either as a single codepoint or a sequence. So if you indeed can convert all individual (logical) characters into the desired encoding, then with
while ($word =~ /(\X)/g) { ... }
you can access the logical characters and apply your working procedure to each.
In case you can't handle all logical characters that may come up, piece together an equivalent of \X using specific character properties, for finer granularity with combining marks or such (like /((.)\p{Mn}?)/, or \p{Nonspacing_Mark}). The full, grand, list is in perluniprops.
The Unicode Normalization FAQ includes the following paragraph:
Programs should always compare canonical-equivalent Unicode strings as equal ... The Unicode Standard provides well-defined normalization forms that can be used for this: NFC and NFD.
and continues...
The choice of which to use depends on the particular program or system. NFC is the best form for general text, since it is more compatible with strings converted from legacy encodings. ... NFD and NFKD are most useful for internal processing.
My questions are:
What makes NFC best for "general text." What defines "internal processing" and why is it best left to NFD? And finally, never minding what is "best," are the two forms interchangable as long as two strings are compared using the same normalization form?
The FAQ is somewhat misleading, starting from its use of “should” followed by the inconsistent use of “requirement” about the same thing. The Unicode Standard itself (cited in the FAQ) is more accurate. Basically, you should not expect programs to treat canonically equivalent strings as different, but neither should you expect all programs to treat them as identical.
In practice, it really depends on what your software needs to do. In most situations, you don’t need to normalize at all, and normalization may destroy essential information in the data.
For example, U+0387 GREEK ANO TELEIA (·) is defined as canonical equivalent to U+00B7 MIDDLE DOT (·). This was a mistake, as the characters are really distinct and should be rendered differently and treated differently in processing. But it’s too late to change that, since this part of Unicode has been carved into stone. Consequently, if you convert data to NFC or otherwise discard differences between canonically equivalent strings, you risk getting wrong characters.
There are risks that you take by not normalizing. For example, the letter “ä” can appear as a single Unicode character U+00E4 LATIN SMALL LETTER A WITH DIAERESIS or as two Unicode characters U+0061 LATIN SMALL LETTER A U+0308 COMBINING DIAERESIS. It will mostly be the former, i.e. the precomposed form, but if it is the latter and your code tests for data containing “ä”, using the precomposed form only, then it will not detect the latter. But in many cases, you don’t do such things but simply store the data, concatenate strings, print them, etc. Then there is a risk that the two representations result in somewhat different renderings.
It also matters whether your software passes character data to other software somehow. The recipient might expect, due to naive implicit assumptions or consciously and in a documented manner, that its input is normalized.
NFC is the general common sense form that you should use, ä is 1 code point there and that makes sense.
NFD is good for certain internal processing - if you want to make accent-insensitive searches or sorting, having your string in NFD makes it much easier and faster. Another usage is making more robust slug titles. These are just the most obvious ones, I am sure there are plenty of more uses.
If two strings x and y are canonical equivalents, then
toNFC(x) = toNFC(y)
toNFD(x) = toNFD(y)
Is that what you meant?
A few days ago, I asked why its not possible to store binary data, such as a jpg file into a string variable.
Most of the answers I got said that string is used for textual information such as what I'm writing now.
What is considered textual data though? Bytes of a certain nature represent a jpg file and those bytes could be represented by character byte values...I think. So when we say strings are for textual information, is there some sort of range or list of characters that aren't stored?
Sorry if the question sounds silly. Just trying to 'get it'
I see three major problems with storing binary data in strings:
Most systems assume a certain encoding within string variables - e.g. if it's a UTF-8, UTF-16 or ASCII string. New line characters may also be translated depending on your system.
You should watch out for restrictions on the size of strings.
If you use C style strings, every null character in your data will terminate the string and any string operations performed will only work on the bytes up to the first null.
Perhaps the most important: it's confusing - other developers don't expect to find random binary data in string variables. And a lot of code which works on strings might also get really confused when encountering binary data :)
I would prefer to store binary data as binary, you would only think of converting it to text when there's no other choice since when you convert it to a textual representation it does waste some bytes (not much, but it still counts), that's how they put attachments in email.
Base64 is a good textual representation of binary files.
I think you are referring to binary to text encoding issue. (translate a jpg into a string would require that sort of pre-processing)
Indeed, in that article, some characters are mentioned as not always supported, other can be confusing:
Some systems have a more limited character set they can handle; not only are they not 8-bit clean, some can't even handle every printable ASCII character.
Others have limits on the number of characters that may appear between line breaks.
Still others add headers or trailers to the text.
And a few poorly-regarded but still-used protocols use in-band signaling, causing confusion if specific patterns appear in the message. The best-known is the string "From " (including trailing space) at the beginning of a line used to separate mail messages in the mbox file format.
Whoever told you you can't put 'binary' data into a string was wrong. A string simply represents an array of bytes that you most likely plan on using for textual data... but there is nothing stopping you from putting any data in there you want.
I do have to be careful though, because I don't know what language you are using... and in some languages \0 ends the string.
In C#, you can put any data into a string... example:
byte[] myJpegByteArray = GetBytesFromSomeImage();
string myString = Encoding.ASCII.GetString(myJpegByteArray);
Before internationalization, it didn't make much difference. ASCII characters are all bytes, so strings, character arrays and byte arrays ended up having the same implementation.
These days, though, strings are a lot more complicated, in order to deal with thousands of foreign language characters and the linguistic rules that go with them.
Sure, if you look deep enough, everything is just bits and bytes, but there's a world of difference in how the computer interprets them. The rules for "text" make things look right when it's displayed to a human, but the computer is free to monkey with the internal representation. For example,
In Unicode, there are many encoding systems. Changing between them makes every byte different.
Some languages have multiple characters that are linguistically equivalent. These could switch back and forth when you least expect it.
There are different ways to end a line of text. Unintended translations between CRLF and LF will break a binary file.
Deep down everything is just bytes.
Things like strings and pictures are defined by rules about how to order bytes.
strings for example end in a byte with value 32 (or something else)
jpg's don't
Depends on the language. For example in Python string types (str) are really byte arrays, so they can indeed be used for binary data.
In C the NULL byte is used for string termination, so a sting cannot be used for arbitrary binary data, since binary data could contain null bytes.
In C# a string is an array of chars, and since a char is basically an alias for 16bit int, you can probably get away with storing arbitrary binary data in a string. You might get errors when you try to display the string (because some values might not actually correspond to a legal unicode character), and some operations like case conversions will probably fail in strange ways.
In short it might be possible in some langauges to store arbitrary binary data in strings, but they are not designed for this use, and you may run into all kinds of unforseen trouble. Most languages have a byte-array type for storing arbitrary binary data.
I agree with Jacobus' answer:
In the end all data structures are made up of bytes. (Well, if you go even deeper: of bits). With some abstraction, you could say that a string or a byte array are conventions for programmers, on how to access them.
In this regard, the string is an abstraction for data interpreted as a text. Text was invented for communication among humans, computers or programs do not communicate very well using text. SQL is textual, but is an interface for humans to tell a database what to do.
So in general, textual data, and therefore strings, are primarily for human to human, or human to machine interaction (say for the content of a message box). Using them for something else (e.g. reading or writing binary image data) is possible, but carries lots of risk bacause you are using the data type for something it was not designed to handle. This makes it much more error prone. You may be able to store binary data in strings, mbut just because you are able to shoot yourself in the foot, you should avoid doing so.
Summary: You can do it. But you better don't.
Your original question (c# - What is string really good for?) made very little sense. So the answers didn't make sense, either.
Your original question said "For some reason though, when I write this string out to a file, it doesn't open." Which doesn't really mean much.
Your original question was incomplete, and the answers were misleading and confusing. You CAN store anything in a String. Period. The "strings are for text" answers were there because you didn't provide enough information in your question to determine what's going wrong with your particular bit of C# code.
You didn't provide a code snippet or an error message. That's why it's hard to 'get it' -- you're not providing enough details for us to know what you don't get.