I have initialized two character constants like this:
let emojiCharacter = "๐"
let simpleCharacter = "a"
I am printing result for lengthOfBytesUsingEncoding like this:
println("\(emojiCharacter) countElements returns \(countElements(emojiCharacter))")
println("\(simpleCharacter) countElements returns \(countElements(simpleCharacter))")
println("\(emojiCharacter) UTF16StringEncoding lengthOfBytesUsingEncoding returns \(emojiCharacter.lengthOfBytesUsingEncoding(NSUTF16StringEncoding))")
println("\(simpleCharacter) UTF16StringEncoding lengthOfBytesUsingEncoding returns \(simpleCharacter.lengthOfBytesUsingEncoding(NSUTF16StringEncoding))")
println("\(emojiCharacter) NSUTF8StringEncoding lengthOfBytesUsingEncoding returns \(emojiCharacter.lengthOfBytesUsingEncoding(NSUTF8StringEncoding))")
println("\(simpleCharacter) NSUTF8StringEncoding lengthOfBytesUsingEncoding returns \(simpleCharacter.lengthOfBytesUsingEncoding(NSUTF8StringEncoding))")
Below are the results:
๐ countElements returns 1
a countElements returns 1
๐ UTF16StringEncoding lengthOfBytesUsingEncoding returns 4
a UTF16StringEncoding lengthOfBytesUsingEncoding returns 2
๐ NSUTF8StringEncoding lengthOfBytesUsingEncoding returns 4
a NSUTF8StringEncoding lengthOfBytesUsingEncoding returns 1
I am confused by the results because according to my understanding if we are using UTF16StringEncoding then it treats each character as 2 bytes or 16 bits and if we use UTF8StringEncoding then it treats each character as 1 byte or 8 bits, so when I tried to log lengthOfBytes for simpleCharacter using UTF16StringEncoding it displayed 2 bytes and for NSUTF8StringEncoding it displayed 1 byte.
I understand that emoji characters are represented differently but then why it is always returning result as 4?
Also if I want to iterate over each character in string I will always use countElements, but then exactly when will it be helpful to use lengthOfBytesUsingEncoding?
Please suggest.
The size of the UTF encoding simply defines the minimum number of bytes to be used to represent a character. However, certain characters, like the emoji you are using, require more than 2 bytes to be represented. All characters take at least the minimum defined in the encoding, and up to as many bytes as is necessary.
There are various reasons that the different encodings exists, but to give you a quick example: If you know all characters you are going to use are 2 bytes or less, you can use a UTF-16 encoded string so that you can immediately jump to a character at any index like a normal array because they are stored uniformly in memory. If you instead encoded it as UTF-8, you would no longer be able to jump in the array safely because some characters would be represented in 1 byte and others would be represented in more than 1 byte making the position of a specific index in memory unclear.
Emoji are always longer than the types you specified (UTF16 and UTF8) because both of those sizes are already full, so can't store the additional symbols needed by the Emoji pack.
As you have already figured out, the basic Latin alphabet can fit into a single byte: http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0000.pdf (Note that when reading the table, the U+XXXX value is a 16-bit hex code, so U+0061 = (binary)0000 0000 0110 0001, which is the lower case a)
As you add more languages and symbols, you start needing to use two bytes: http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0080.pdf (U+00E4 = 1100 0011 1010 0100 = รค)
However, I need to clairify a point here because I was confused on it. As explained by Drewag in his answer and John Estropia in my answer's comments, the byte size of Unicode only describes the minimum size of a charcter in that encoding. As you saw, you can have a larger Emoji character in UTF8 encoding, it just takes more space.
There is no 3 byte minimum encoding because it wouldn't make sense with the most common CPUs in use today. The latest standard of Unicode is 32-bits (4 bytes) and is where Emoji starts to fit in: http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/Unicode-6.1/U61-1F600.pdf . Notice that there are now five hex values following the U+, rather than the four we have seen before, which requires at least 3 bytes of addressing.
So, if you were to use UTF32, you would see the Basic Latin characters appearing at the same size at the Emoji.
As an example of when you would want to programmatically find the lengthOfBytesUsingEncoding, imagine you're writing a program which compresses, through some algorithm*, a text file. In order to encode or decode, you will need to know the length of a character in the original file. You are somehow given the encoding, which can be different for different text files. You could either have a mess of if/else blocks, containing every possible encoding (at the time you're writing the program), or you could have a nice variable which gets its value from lengthOfBytesUsingEncoding (insert encoding here).
*I'm thinking Huffman compression, but there are probably other examples...
I wish I could think of a better - everyday - example! But, in general, I would say that it's not often you would need to know the byte length of a character in a given encoding.
Related
If you have a set of binary strings that are limited to some normally-small size such as 256 or up to 512 bytes like some of the hashing algorithms, then if you want to encode those bits of 1's and 0's into say hex (a 16-character alphabet), then you take the whole string at once into memory and convert it into hex. At least that's what I think it means.
I don't have this question fully formulated, but what I'm wondering is if you can convert an arbitrarily long binary string into some alphabet, without needing to read the whole string into memory. The reason this isn't fully formed question is because I'm not exactly sure if you typically do read the whole string into memory to create the encoded version.
So if you have something like this:
1011101010011011011101010011011011101010011011110011011110110110111101001100101010010100100000010111101110101001101101110101001101101110101001101111001101111011011011110100110010101001010010000001011110111010100110110111010100110110111010100110111100111011101010011011011101010011011011101010100101010010100100000010111101110101001101101110101001101101111010011011110011011110110110111101001100101010010100100000010111101110101001101101101101101101101111010100110110111010100110110111010100110111100110111101101101111010011001010100101001000000101111011101010011011011101010011011011101010011011110011011110110110111101001100 ... 10^50 longer
Something like the whole genetic code or a million billion times that, it would be too large to read into memory and too slow to wait to dynamically create an encoding of it into hex if you have to stream the whole thing through memory before you can figure out the final encoding.
So I'm wondering three things:
If you do have to read something fully in order to encode it into some other alphabet.
If you do, then why that is the case.
If you don't, then how it works.
The reason I'm asking is because looking at a string like 1010101, if I were to encode it as hex there are a few ways:
One character at a time, so it would essentially stay 1010101 unless the alphabet was {a, b} then it would be abababa. This is the best case because you don't have to read anything more than 1 character into memory to figure out the encoding. But it limits you to a 2-character alphabet. (Anything more than 2 character alphabets and I start getting confused)
By turning it into an integer, then converting that into a hex value. But this would require reading the whole value to compute the final (big)integer size. So that's where I get confused.
I feel like the third way (3) would be to read partial chunks of the input bytes somehow, like 1010 then010, but that would not work if the encoding was integers because 1010 010 = A 2 in hex, but 2 = 10 not 2 = 010. So it's like you would need to break it by having a 1 at the beginning of each chunk. But then what if you wanted to have each chunk no longer than 10 hex characters, but you have a long string of 1000 0's, then you need some other trick perhaps like having the encoded hex value tell you how many preceding zeroes you have, etc. So it seems like it gets complicated, wondering if there are already some systems established that have figured out how to do this. Hence the above questions.
For an example, say I wanted to encode the above binary string into an 8-bit alphabet, so like ASCII. Then I might have aBc?D4*&((!.... But then to deserialize this into the bits is one part, and to serialize the bits into this is another (these characters aren't the actual characters mapped to the above bit example).
But then what if you wanted to have each chunk no longer than 10 hex characters, but you have a long string of 1000 0's, then you need some other trick perhaps like having the encoded hex value tell you how many preceding zeroes you have, etc. So it seems like it gets complicated, wondering if there are already some systems established that have figured out how to do this
Yes you're way over-complicating it. To start simple, consider bit strings whose length is by definition a multiple of 4. They can be represented in hexadecimal by just grouping the bits up by 4 and remapping that to hexadecimal digits:
raw: 11011110101011011011111011101111
group: 1101 1110 1010 1101 1011 1110 1110 1111
remap: D E A D B E E F
So 11011110101011011011111011101111 -> DEADBEEF. That all the nibbles had their top bit set was a coincidence resulting from choosing an example that way. By definition the input is divided up into groups of four, and every hexadecimal digit is later decoded to a group of four bits, including leading zeroes if applicable. This is all that you need for typical hash codes which have a multiple of 4 bits.
The problems start when we want encode bit strings that are of variable length and not necessarily a multiple of 4 long, then there will have to be some padding somewhere, and the decoder needs to know how much padding there was (and where, but the location is a convention that you choose). This is why your example seemed so ambiguous: it is. Extra information needs to be added to tell the decoder how many bits to discard.
For example, leaving aside the mechanism that transmits the number of padding bits, we could encode 1010101 as A5 or AA or 5A (and more!) depending on the location we choose for the padding, whichever convention we choose the decoder needs to know that there is 1 bit of padding. To put that back in terms of bits, 1010101 could be encoded as any of these:
x101 0101
101x 0101
1010 x101
1010 101x
Where x marks the bit which is inserted in the encoder and discarded in the decoder. The value of that bit doesn't actually matter because it is discarded, so DA is also a fine encoding and so on.
All of the choices of where to put the padding still enable the bit string to be encoded incrementally, without storing the whole bit string in memory, though putting the padding in the first hexadecimal digit requires knowing the length of the bit string up front.
If you are asking this in the context of Huffman coding, you wouldn't want to calculate the length of the bit string in advance so the padding has to go at the end. Often an extra symbol is added to the alphabet that signals the end of the stream, which usually makes it unnecessary to explicitly store how much padding bits there are (there might be any number of them, but as they appear after the STOP symbol, the decoder automatically disregards them).
EDIT
Since it seems I'm not going to get an answer to the general question. I'll restrict it to one detail: Is my understanding of the following, correct?
That surrogates work as follows:
If the first pair of bytes is not between D800 and DBFF - there
will not be a second pair.
If it is between D800 and DBFF - a) there will be a second pair b)
the second pair will be in the range of DC00 and DFFF.
There is no single pair UTF16 character with a value between D800
and DBFF.
There is no single pair UTF16 character with a value between DC00
and DFFF.
Is this right?
Original question
I've tried reading about UTF16 but I can't seem to understand it. What are "planes" and "surrogates" etc.? Is a "plane" the first 5 bits of the first byte? If so, then why not 32 planes since we're using those 5 bits anyway? And what are surrogates? Which bits do they correspond to?
I do understand that UTF16 is a way to encode Unicode characters, and that it sometimes encodes characters using 16 bits, and sometimes 32 bits, no more no less. I assume that there is some list of values for the first 2 bytes (which are the most significant ones?) which indicates that a second 2 bytes will be present.
But instead of me going on about what I don't understand, perhaps someone can make some order in this?
Yes on all four.
To clarify, the term "pair" in UTF-16 refers to two UTF-16 code units, the first in the range D800-DBFF, the second in DC00-DFFF.
A code unit is 16-bits (2 bytes), typically written as an unsigned integer in hexadecimal (0x000A). The order of the bytes (0x00 0x0A or 0x0A 0x00) is specified by the author or indicated with a BOM (0xFEFF) at the beginning of the file or stream. (The BOM is encoded with the same algorithm as the text but is not part of the text. Once the byte order is determined and the bytes are reordered to the native ordering of the system, it typically is discarded.)
According to wikipedia:
When the number of bytes to encode is not divisible by three (that is,
if there are only one or two bytes of input for the last 24-bit
block), then the following action is performed:
Add extra bytes with value zero so there are three bytes, and perform
the conversion to base64.
However, if we got an extra \0 character at the end, the last 6 bits of the input have a value of 0. And the number 0 must be base64-codified as A. The character = doesn't even belong to the base64 encoding table.
I know that those extra null characters doesn't belong to the original binary string, so, we use a different character (=) to avoid confussions, but anyway, the Wikipedia article and other thousand sites doesn't say that. They say that the newly constructed string must be base64-encoded (sentence which strictly implies the use of the transformation table).
Are all of these sites wrong?
Any sequence of four characters chosen from the main base64 set will represent precisely three octets worth of data. Consequently, If the total length of the file to be encoded it will be necessary to either:
Allow the encoded file to have a length which is not a multiple of 4.
Allow the encoded file to have characters outside the main set of 64.
If the former approach were used, then concatenating of files whose length
was not a multiple of three would be likely to yield a file that might
appear valid but would contain bogus information. For example, a file
with length 32 would expand to ten groups of four base64 characters plus
three more for the final pair of octets (total 43). Concatenating another
file with length 32 would yield a total of 86 characters which might look
valid, but information from the second half would not decode correctly.
Using the latter approach, concatenation of files whose length was not a
multiple of three would yield a result that could be unambiguously parsed
or, at worst, recognized as invalid (the base64 Standard does not regard
as valid a file that contains "=" anywhere but at the end, but one could
write a decoder that could process such files unambiguously). In any case,
having such a file be regarded as invalid would be better than having a file
which appeared valid but which produces incorrect data when decoded.
If I were creating a videogame level editor in AS3 or .NET with a string-based level format, that can be copied, pasted and emailed, how much data could I encode into each character? What is important is getting the maximum amount of data for the minimum amount of characters displayed on the screen, regardless of how many bytes the computer is actually using to store these characters.
For example if I wanted to store the horizontal position of an object in 1 string character, how many possible values could that have? Are there are any characters that can't be sent over a the internet, or that can't be copy and pasted? What difference would things like UTF8 make? Answers please for either AS3 or C#/.NET, or both.
2nd update: ok so Flash uses UTF16 for its String class. There are lots of control characters that I cannot use. How could I manage which characters are ok to use? Just a big lookup table? And can operating systems and browser handle UTF16 to the extent that you can safely copy and paste a UTF16 string into an email, notepad, etc?
Updated: "update 1", "update 2"
You can store 8 Bits in a single charakter with ANSI, ASCII or UTF-8 encoding.
But, for example, if you whant to use ASCII-Encoding you shouldn't use the first 5 bits (0001 1111 = 0x1F) and the chars 0x7F there are represent system-charaters like "Escape, null, start of text, end of text ..) who are not can be copy and paste. So you could store 223 (1110 0000 = 0xE0) different informations in one single charakter.
If you use UTF-16 you have 2 bytes = 16 bits - system-characters to store your informationen.
A in UTF-8 Encoding: 0x0041 (the first 2 digits are every 0!) or 0x41
A in UTF-16 Encoding: 0x0041 (the first 2 digits can be higher then 0)
A in ASCII Encoding: 0x41
A in ANSI Encoding: 0x41
see images at the and of this post!
update 1:
If you not need to modify the values without any tool (c#-tool, javascript-base webpage, ...) you can alternative base64 or zip+base64 your informationens. this solution avoid the problem that you descript in your 2nd update. "here are lots of control characters that I cannot use. How could I manage which characters are ok to use?"
If this is not an option you can not avoid to use any type of lookup-table.
the shortest way for an lookuptable are:
var illegalCharCodes = new byte[]{0x00, 0x01, 0x02, ..., 0x1f, 0x7f};
or you code it like this:
//The example based on ASNI-Encoding but in principle its the same with utf-16
var value = 0;
if(charcode > 0x7f)
value = charcode - 0x1f - 1; //-1 because 0x7f is the first illegalCharCode higher then 0x1f
else
value = charcode - 0x1f;
value -= 1; //because you need a 0 value;
//charcode: 0x20 (' ') -> value: 0
//charcode: 0x21 ('!') -> value: 1
//charcode: 0x22 ('"') -> value: 2
//charcode: 0x7e ('~') -> value: 94
//charcode: 0x80 ('โฌ') -> value: 95
//charcode: 0x81 ('๏ฟฝ') -> value: 96
//..
update 2:
for Unicode (UTF-16) you can use this table: http://www.tamasoft.co.jp/en/general-info/unicode.html
Any character represent with a symbol like or are empty you should not use.
So you can not store 50,000 possible values in one utf-16 character if you allow to copy and past them. you need any spezial-encoder and you must use 2 UTF-16 character like:
//charcode: 0x0020 + 0x0020 (' ') > value: 0
//charcode: 0x0020 + 0x0020 (' !') > value: 2
//charcode: 0x0020 + 0x0020 ('!A') > value: something higher 40.000, i dont know excatly because i dont have count the illegal characters in UTF-16 :D
(source: asciitable.com)
Confusingly, a char is not the same thing as a character. In C and C++, a char is virtually always an 8-bit type. In Java and C#, a char is a UTF-16 code unit and thus a 16-bit type.
But in Unicode, a character is represented by a "code" point that ranges from 0 to 0x10FFFF, for which a 16-bit type is inadequate. So a character must either be represented by a 21-bit type (in practice, a 32-bit type), or use multiple "code units". Specifically,
IN UTF-32, all characters require 32 bits.
In UTF-16, characters U+0000 to U+FFFF (the "basic multilingual plane"), except for U+D800 to U+DFFF which cannot be represented, require 16 bits, and all other characters require 32 bits.
In UTF-8, characters U+0000 to U+007F (the ASCII reportoire) require 8 bits, U+0080 to U+07FF require 16 bits, U+0800 to U+FFFF require 24 bits, and all other characters require 32 bits.
If I were creating a videogame level
editor with a string-based level
format, how much data could I encode
into each char? For example if I
wanted to store the horizontal
position of an object in 1 char, how
many possible values could that have?
Since you wrote char rather than "character", the answer is 256 for C and 65,536 for C#.
But char isn't designed to be a binary data type. byte or short would be more appropriate.
Are there are any characters that
can't be sent over a the internet, or
that can't be copy and pasted?
There aren't any characters that can't be sent over the Internet, but you have to be careful using "control characters" or non-ASCII characters.
Many Internet protocols (especially SMTP) are designed for text rather than binary data. If you want to send binary data, you can Base64 encode it. That gives you 6 bits of information for each byte of the message.
In C, a char is a type of integer, and it's most typically one byte wide. One byte is 8 bits so that's 2 to the power 8, or 256, possible values (as noted in another answer).
In other languages, a 'character' is a completely different thing from an integer (as it should be), and has to be explicitly encoded to turn it into a byte. Java, for example, makes this relatively simple by storing characters internally in a UTF-16 encoding (forgive me some details), so they take up 16 bits, but that's just implementation detail. Different encodings such as UTF-8 mean that a character, when encoded for transmission, could occupy anything from one to four bytes.
Thus your question is slighly malformed (which is to say it's actually several distinct questions in one).
How many values can a byte have? 256.
What characters can be sent in emails? Mostly those ASCII characters from space (32) to tilde (126).
What bytes can be sent over the internet? Any you like, as long as you encode them for transmission.
What can be cut-and-pasted? If your platform can do Unicode, then all of unicode; if not, not.
Does UTF-8 make a difference? UTF-8 is a standard way of encoding a string of characters into a string of bytes, and probably not much to do with your question (Joel Spolsky has a very good account of The Absolute Minimum Every Software Developer Absolutely, Positively Must Know About Unicode and Character Sets (No Excuses!)).
So pick a question!
Edit, following edit to question Aha! If the question is: 'how do I encode data in such a way that it can be mailed?', then the answer is probably 'Use base64'. That is, if you have some purely binary format for your levels, then base64 is the 'standard' (very much quotes-standard) way of encoding that binary blob in a way that will make it through mail. The things you want to google for are 'serialization' and 'deserialization'. Base64 is probably close to the practical maximum of information-per-mailable-character.
(Another answer is 'use XML', but the question seems to imply some preference for compactness, and that a basically binary format is desirable).
The number of different states a variable can hold is two to the power of the number of bits it has. How many bits a variable has is something that is likely to vary according to the compiler and machine used. But in most cases a char will have eight bits and two to the power eight is two hundred and fifty six.
Modern screen resolutions being what they are, you will most likely need more than one char for the horizontal position of anything.
Exactly that: Does a strings length equal the byte size? Does it matter on the language?
I think it is, but I just want to make sure.
Additional Info: I'm just wondering in general. My specific situation was PHP with MySQL.
As the answer is no, that's all I need know.
Nope. A zero terminated string has one extra byte. A pascal string (the Delphi shortstring) has an extra byte for the length. And unicode strings has more than one byte per character.
By unicode it depends on the encoding. It could be 2 or 4 bytes per character or even a mix of 1,2 and 4 bytes.
It entirely depends on the platform and representation.
For example, in .NET a string takes two bytes in memory per UTF-16 code point. However, surrogate pairs require two UTF-16 values for a full Unicode character in the range U+100000 to U+10FFFF. The in-memory form also has an overhead for the length of the string and possibly some padding, as well as the normal object overhead of a type pointer etc.
Now, when you write a string out to disk (or the network, etc) from .NET, you specify the encoding (with most classes defaulting to UTF-8). At that point, the size depends very much on the encoding. ASCII always takes a single byte per character, but is very limited (no accents etc); UTF-8 gives the full Unicode range with a variable encoding (all ASCII characters are represented in a single byte, but others take up more). UTF-32 always uses exactly 4 bytes for any Unicode character - the list goes on.
As you can see, it's not a simple topic. To work out how much space a string is going to take up you'll need to specify exactly what the situation is - whether it's an object in memory on some platform (and if so, which platform - potentially even down to the implementation and operating system settings), or whether it's a raw encoded form such as a text file, and if so using which encoding.
It depends on what you mean by "length". If you mean "number of characters" then, no, many languages/encoding methods use more than one byte per character.
Not always, it depends on the encoding.
There's no single answer; it depends on language and implementation (remember that some languages have multiple implementations!)
Zero-terminated ASCII strings occupy at least one more byte than the "content" of the string. (More may be allocated, depending on how the string was created.)
Non-zero-terminated strings use a descriptor (or similar structure) to record length, which takes extra memory somewhere.
Unicode strings (in various languages) use two bytes per char.
Strings in an object store may be referenced via handles, which adds a layer of indirection (and more data) in order to simplify memory management.
You are correct. If you encode as ASCII, there is one byte per character. Otherwise, it is one or more bytes per character.
In particular, it is important to know how this effects substring operations. If you don't have one byte per character, does s[n] get the nth byte or nth char? Getting the nth char will be inefficient for large n instead of constant, as it is with a one byte per character.