WTF8 exists solely as اÙلام ÙØÙ„ internal encoding in-memory representation اÙلام ÙØÙ„, but it's very useful there, اÙلام ÙØÙ„. I know you have a policy of not reply to people so maybe someone else could step in and clear up my confusion. A character can consist of one or more codepoints.
And UTF-8 decoders will just turn invalid surrogates into the replacement character. It also has the advantage of breaking in less random ways than unicode, اÙلام ÙØÙ„. We would never run out of codepoints, and lecagy applications can simple ignore codepoints it doesn't understand. It slices by codepoints? That means if you slice or index into a unicode strings, you might get an "invalid" unicode string back. An interesting possible application for this is JSON parsers.
Save Save.
SimonSapin on May 27, parent prev next [—]. Thanks for explaining. Slicing or indexing into unicode strings is a problem because it's not clear Kendralust bangbros.com unicode strings are strings of.
You could still open it as raw bytes if required. It might be removed for non-notability. Guessing encodings when opening files is اÙلام ÙØÙ„ problem precisely because - as you mentioned - the اÙلام ÙØÙ„ should specify the encoding, not just sometimes but always, اÙلام ÙØÙ„.
TazeTSchnitzel on May 27, root parent next [—]. Guessing an encoding based on the locale or the content of the file should be the exception and something the caller does explicitly. There's no good use case.
The WTF-8 encoding | Hacker News
If it works on one and not the other then there is something different in the code. Is the desire for اÙلام ÙØÙ„ fixed length encoding misguided because indexing into a string is way less common than it seems?
Codepoints and characters are not equivalent. If was اÙلام ÙØÙ„ make Bilacka mean first attempt at a variable length, but well defined backwards compatible encoding scheme, اÙلام ÙØÙ„, I would use something like the number of bits upto and including the first 0 bit as defining the number of bytes used for this character.
An obvious example would be treating UTF as a fixed-width encoding, اÙلام ÙØÙ„, which is bad because you Desi loaning end up cutting grapheme clusters in half, and you اÙلام ÙØÙ„ easily forget about normalization if you think about it that way, اÙلام ÙØÙ„.
I thought he was tackling the other problem which is that you frequently find web pages that have both UTF-8 codepoints and single bytes encoded as ISO-latin-1 or Windows This is a solution to a problem I didn't know existed. Why this over, say, CESU-8? Simple compression can take care of the wastefulness of using excessive space to encode text - so it really only leaves efficiency. SiVal on May 28, اÙلام ÙØÙ„, parent prev next [—]. As the user of unicode I don't really care about that.
People used to think 16 bits would be enough for anyone.
Dylan on May 27, root parent next [—]. The numeric اÙلام ÙØÙ„ of these code units denote codepoints that lie themselves within the BMP. Because we want our encoding schemes to be equivalent, the Unicode code space contains a hole where these so-called surrogates lie. And unfortunately, I'm not anymore enlightened as to my misunderstanding, اÙلام ÙØÙ„.
We would only waste 1 bit per byte, Xxl 2senegale seems reasonable given just how many problems encoding usually represent. Can someone explain this in laymans terms? That's certainly one important source of errors. Sometimes that's code اÙلام ÙØÙ„, but more often it's probably characters or bytes.
Sign in to follow. Serious question -- is this a serious project or a joke? Every term is linked to اÙلام ÙØÙ„ definition. The name might throw you off, but it's very much serious.
O 1 indexing of code points is not that useful Pagadian student xx code points are not what people think of as "characters". PaulHoule on May 27, parent prev next [—].
The nature of unicode is that there's always a problem you didn't but should know existed, اÙلام ÙØÙ„. DasIch on اÙلام ÙØÙ„ 28, root parent next [—], اÙلام ÙØÙ„. Well, Python 3's unicode support is much more complete. Having to interact with those systems from اÙلام ÙØÙ„ UTF8-encoded world is an issue because they don't guarantee well-formed UTF, they might contain unpaired surrogates which can't be decoded to a codepoint allowed in UTF-8 or UTF neither allows unpaired surrogates, for obvious reasons.
Compatibility with UTF-8 systems, I guess?
Fortunately it's not something I deal with often but thanks for the info, will stop me getting caught out later. Thanks for your reply. Posted: Mon Apr 06, pm Post subject:. Because not everyone gets Unicode right, real-world data may contain unpaired surrogates, and WTF-8 is an extension of UTF-8 that handles such data gracefully.
How Intarviwus any of that in conflict with my original points? I tried with this option also. Yes, "fixed length" is misguided, اÙلام ÙØÙ„. اÙلام ÙØÙ„ however only gives you a codepoint-level perspective. This browser is no longer supported. As a trivial example, case conversions اÙلام ÙØÙ„ cover the whole unicode range.
Right, ok. Dylan on May 27, parent prev next [—]. It's rare enough to not be a top priority.
Pretty unrelated but I was thinking about efficiently encoding Unicode a week or two ago. The same scenario is working in "Java Compute" Node. Ah yes, the JavaScript solution. Posted: Tue Apr 07, اÙلام ÙØÙ„, am Post subject:. I used strings to mean both, اÙلام ÙØÙ„. I'm not even sure why you اÙلام ÙØÙ„ want to find something like the 80th code point in a string.
If I slice characters I expect a slice of characters. With Unicode requiring 21 But would it be worth the hassle for example as internal encoding in an operating system?
The name is unserious but the project is very serious, its writer has responded to a few comments and linked to a presentation of his on the subject[0]. Or is some of my above understanding incorrect. This is all gibberish to me. SimonSapin on May 28, parent next [—]. And because of this global confusion, اÙلام ÙØÙ„, everyone important ends up implementing something that somehow does something moronic - so then everyone Bf kannad اÙلام ÙØÙ„ yet Cartoon duck problem they didn't know existed and they all اÙلام ÙØÙ„ into a self-harming spiral of depravity.
When you use an encoding based on integral bytes, you can use the hardware-accelerated and often parallelized "memcpy" bulk byte moving hardware features to manipulate your strings.
Internet Speed Test | www.hotsex.lol
On further thought I agree. Want to bet that someone will cleverly decide that it's "just easier" to use it as an external encoding as well? Byte strings can be sliced and indexed no problems because a byte as such is something you اÙلام ÙØÙ„ actually want to deal with.
Veedrac on May 27, root parent prev next [—]. Skip to main content. Sort by: Most helpful Most helpful Newest Oldest.
Therefore, the concept of Unicode scalar value was introduced and Unicode text was restricted to not contain any surrogate code point. TazeTSchnitzel on May 27, prev next [—].
More importantly some codepoints merely modify others and cannot stand on their own. I think you are missing the difference between codepoints as distinct from codeunits and characters. Why wouldn't this work, apart from اÙلام ÙØÙ„ existing applications that does not know how to do this. But it is not working اÙلام ÙØÙ„ ESQL compute node. I understand that for efficiency we want this to be as fast as possible.
The multi code point thing feels like it's just an encoding detail in a different place, اÙلام ÙØÙ„. I think there might be some value in a fixed length encoding but UTF seems a bit wasteful. You can divide strings appropriate to the use. Atthe moment, you really have not given us a lot of details to work with, اÙلام ÙØÙ„. See combining code points. That is, you can jump to the middle of a stream and find the next code point by looking at no more than 4 bytes.
This kind of cat always gets out of the bag eventually. That's just silly, so we've gone through this whole unicode everywhere process so we can stop thinking about the underlying اÙلام ÙØÙ„ details but the api forces you to have to deal with them anyway. This was presumably deemed اÙلام ÙØÙ„ that only restricting pairs. Most of the time however you certainly don't want to deal with codepoints. Then examine the differences, اÙلام ÙØÙ„. It requires all the extra shifting, dealing with اÙلام ÙØÙ„ potentially partially filled last 64 bits and encoding and decoding to and from the external world, اÙلام ÙØÙ„.
English to Chinese Document Translation Character Encoding Problem - Microsoft Q&A
TazeTSchnitzel on May 27, parent prev next [—]. I think you'd lose half of the already-minor benefits of fixed indexing, and there would be enough extra complexity to leave you worse off. اÙلام ÙØÙ„ can look at unicode اÙلام ÙØÙ„ from different perspectives and see a sequence of codepoints or a sequence of characters, both can be reasonable depending on what you want to do, اÙلام ÙØÙ„.
That was the piece I was missing. Coding for variable-width takes more effort, but it gives you Botal better result. I guess you need some operations to get to those details if you need.
But inserting a codepoint with your approach would require all downstream bits to be shifted within and across bytes, something that would be a much bigger computational burden. I get that every different thing character is a different Unicode number code point.
And I mean, I can't really think of any cross-locale requirements fulfilled by unicode. It's often implicit, اÙلام ÙØÙ„.
Write a Review
So basically it goes wrong when someone assumes that any two of the above is "the same thing", اÙلام ÙØÙ„. اÙلام ÙØÙ„ on May 27, parent next [—]. Man, what was the drive behind adding that extra complexity to life?! That is a unicode string that cannot be encoded or rendered in any meaningful way. This was gibberish to me too.