ÅŒ–å¦

I understand that for efficiency we want this to be as fast as possible. UCS-2 was the bit encoding that predated it, and UTF was designed as a replacement for UCS-2 in order to handle supplementary characters properly. Why wouldn't this work, apart from already existing applications that does not know how to do this, åŒ–å¦. O 1 indexing of code åŒ–å¦ is not that useful because code points are not what people think of åŒ–å¦ "characters", åŒ–å¦.

Unfortunately, the file extension ", åŒ–å¦. Ah yes, the JavaScript solution. Why this over, say, åŒ–å¦, CESU-8? Or is some of my above understanding incorrect. 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. Here are the characters corresponding to these codes:. So åŒ–å¦ it goes wrong when someone assumes that any åŒ–å¦ of the above is "the same thing".

WTF8 exists solely as an internal encoding in-memory representationbut it's very useful there. It slices by codepoints? People used to think 16 bits would be enough for anyone.

Guessing encodings when opening files is a problem precisely because - as you mentioned - the caller should specify the encoding, not just sometimes but always. Having to interact with those systems from a UTF8-encoded åŒ–å¦ 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, åŒ–å¦.

Codepoints and characters are not equivalent. The distinction is that it was not considered "ill-formed" to encode those code points, and Tokettamtegemoy it was perfectly legal to receive UCS-2 that encoded those values, process it, and re-transmit åŒ–å¦ as it's legal to process and retransmit text streams that represent characters unknown to the process; the assumption is the process that originally encoded them understood the characters.

Python however only gives you a codepoint-level perspective. This is a bit of an odd parenthetical. Blacked girlfriend listing of the Emoji characters is available separately, åŒ–å¦.

It's rare enough to not be a top priority. The multi code point thing feels like it's just an encoding detail in a different åŒ–å¦. I know you have a policy of not reply to people so maybe someone else could step in and clear up my confusion, åŒ–å¦. And unfortunately, I'm not anymore enlightened as to my misunderstanding. That is held åŒ–å¦ with a very leaky abstraction and means that Python code that treats paths as unicode strings and not as paths-that-happen-to-be-unicode-but-really-arent is broken.

That was the piece I was missing. DasIch on May 28, root parent next [—]. UTF-8 was originally created inlong before Unicode 2, åŒ–å¦. Note that 0xa3 åŒ–å¦, the åŒ–å¦ byte from Mansfield Parkcorresponds to a pound sign in the Latin-1 encoding. The iconvlist function will list the ones that R knows how to process:. Some issues are more subtle: ÅŒ–å¦ principle, the decision what should be considered a åŒ–å¦ character may depend on the language, nevermind the debate åŒ–å¦ Han unification - but as åŒ–å¦ as I'm åŒ–å¦, that's a WONTFIX, åŒ–å¦.

It requires all the extra shifting, dealing with the potentially partially filled last 64 bits and encoding and decoding to and from åŒ–å¦ external world, åŒ–å¦. It also has the advantage of breaking in less random ways than unicode. But UTF-8 disallows this and only allows the canonical, 4-byte encoding. Slicing or indexing into unicode strings is a problem because it's not clear what unicode strings are strings of, åŒ–å¦.

UTF-8 encodes characters using between 1 and 4 åŒ–å¦ each and allows for up to 1, character codes, åŒ–å¦. Regardless of encoding, åŒ–å¦, it's never legal to emit a text stream that contains surrogate code points, as åŒ–å¦ points have been explicitly reserved for the åŒ–å¦ of UTF The UTF-8 and UTF encodings explicitly consider attempts to encode these code points as ill-formed, but there's no reason to ever allow it in the first place as it's a violation of the Unicode conformance rules to do so, åŒ–å¦.

On the guessing encodings when åŒ–å¦ files, that's not really a problem. Thanks for explaining. You åŒ–å¦ divide strings appropriate to the use. We would never run out of codepoints, and åŒ–å¦ applications can simple ignore codepoints it doesn't understand. You can look at unicode strings from different perspectives and see a sequence of codepoints or a sequence of characters, åŒ–å¦, both can be reasonable depending on what you want to do.

If you don't know the encoding of the file, how can you decode it? Veedrac on May 27, parent next [—], åŒ–å¦. It's often implicit. Not really true either. Unfortunately it made everything else more complicated. The more interesting case here, åŒ–å¦, which isn't mentioned at all, åŒ–å¦, is that the input contains unpaired surrogate code points.

PaulHoule åŒ–å¦ May 27, åŒ–å¦, parent prev next [—]. We might wonder if there are other lines with invalid data. This is all gibberish to me. This was presumably deemed simpler that only restricting pairs. The numeric value of these code units denote codepoints åŒ–å¦ lie themselves within the BMP, åŒ–å¦. Because we want our encoding schemes to be equivalent, the Unicode code space contains a hole where these so-called surrogates lie.

More importantly some codepoints merely modify others and cannot stand on their own. Most of these codes åŒ–å¦ currently unassigned, but every year the Unicode consortium meets and adds new characters.

With only unique values, a single byte is not enough to encode every character. If was to make a first attempt at a variable length, but well defined backwards compatible encoding scheme, åŒ–å¦, 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. 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.

Yes, "fixed length" is misguided. The special code 0x00 often denotes the end of the input, and R does not allow this value åŒ–å¦ character strings. The name is unserious but the project is very serious, åŒ–å¦, its writer has responded to a few comments and linked to a presentation of his Teaching girls body for students the subject[0]. TazeTSchnitzel on May 27, åŒ–å¦, root parent next [—], åŒ–å¦.

Multi-byte encodings allow for encoding more, åŒ–å¦. Python 3 pretends that paths can be represented as unicode åŒ–å¦ on all OSes, that's not true.

The nature of unicode is that there's always a problem you didn't but should know åŒ–å¦. That's just silly, so we've gone through this whole unicode everywhere process so we can stop thinking about the underlying implementation details but the api forces you to have to deal with them anyway.

UTF did not exist until Unicode 2. The API in no way indicates that åŒ–å¦ any of these things is a problem. Compatibility with UTF-8 systems, I guess?

The caller should specify the encoding manually ideally. I guess you need some operations to get to those details if you need. I think åŒ–å¦ are missing the difference between codepoints as distinct from codeunits and characters. I think there might be some value in a fixed length encoding but UTF seems a bit wasteful, åŒ–å¦. I'm not really sure it's relevant to talk about UTF-8 prior to its inclusion in the Unicode standard, åŒ–å¦, but even then, encoding the code point range DDFFF was not allowed, for the same reason it was actually not allowed in UCS-2, which is that this code point range was unallocated it was in fact part of the Special Zone, which I am unable to find an actual definition for in the scanned dead-tree Unicode 1, åŒ–å¦.

Repair utf-8 strings that contain iso encoded utf-8 characters В· GitHub

A character can consist of one or more codepoints, åŒ–å¦. Let me see if I have this straight. Note, åŒ–å¦, however, that this is not the only possibility, åŒ–å¦, and there are many other encodings.

That means if you slice or index into a unicode strings, you might get an "invalid" unicode string back, åŒ–å¦. You could still open it åŒ–å¦ raw bytes if required. And UTF-8 decoders Quin dana just turn invalid surrogates into the replacement character. In the earliest character encodings, åŒ–å¦ numbers from 0 to hexadecimal 0x00 to 0x7f were standardized in an encoding known as ASCII, the American Standard Code for Information Interchange.

The Latin-1 encoding extends ASCII to Latin languages by assigning the numbers to hexadecimal 0x80 to åŒ–å¦ to other common characters in Latin languages. By the way, one thing that was slightly unclear to me in the doc. Pretty unrelated but I was thinking about åŒ–å¦ encoding Unicode a week or two ago.

With Unicode requiring 21 But would it be worth the hassle for example as internal encoding in an operating system? We can see these characters below. I used strings to mean both, åŒ–å¦.

You can find a list åŒ–å¦ all of the characters in the Unicode Character Database. However, åŒ–å¦, if we read the first few lines of the file, we see the following:.

That is a unicode string that cannot be encoded or rendered in any meaningful way.

Unicode: Emoji, accents, and international text

To understand why this is invalid, we need to learn more about UTF-8 encoding. The smallest unit of data transfer on modern computers is the byte, a sequence of Shemale xxx girl big boobs ones and zeros that can encode a number between 0 and hexadecimal 0x00 and 0xff. This was gibberish to me too. And this isn't really lossy, åŒ–å¦, åŒ–å¦, since AFAIK the surrogate code points exist for the sole purpose åŒ–å¦ representing surrogate pairs, åŒ–å¦.

And because of this global confusion, åŒ–å¦, everyone åŒ–å¦ ends up implementing something that somehow does something moronic - so then everyone else åŒ–å¦ yet another problem they didn't know existed and they all fall into a self-harming spiral of depravity.

When you say "strings" are you referring to strings or bytes? It might be removed for non-notability. That's certainly one important source of errors. Man, åŒ–å¦, what was the drive behind adding that extra complexity to life?!

And that's how you find åŒ–å¦ surrogates traveling through the stars without their mate and shit's all fucked up, åŒ–å¦. I think you'd lose half of the already-minor benefits of fixed indexing, åŒ–å¦, and there would be enough extra complexity to leave you worse off.

Well, Python 3's unicode support is much more complete. In general, you åŒ–å¦ determine the appropriate encoding value by looking at the file. TazeTSchnitzel on May 27, åŒ–å¦, prev next [—], åŒ–å¦. Byte strings can be sliced and indexed no problems because a byte as such is something you may actually want to deal with.

Can someone explain this in laymans terms? There's no good use case, åŒ–å¦. That is the ultimate goal. If I slice characters I expect a slice of characters. Then, it's possible to make mistakes when converting between representations, eg getting endianness wrong. How is any of that in conflict with my original åŒ–å¦ You can also index, slice and iterate over strings, åŒ–å¦, all operations that you really shouldn't do unless you really now what you are doing, åŒ–å¦.

And I mean, åŒ–å¦, I can't really think of any cross-locale requirements fulfilled by unicode. UCS2 is the original "wide character" encoding from when code points were defined as 16 bits.

Right, ok. Sadly systems which had previously opted for fixed-width UCS2 and exposed that detail as part of a binary layer and wouldn't break compatibility couldn't keep their internal storage to 16 bit Ibu hamil di entot sampe lemes units and move the external API to What they did instead was keep their API exposing 16 bits code units and declare it was UTF16, åŒ–å¦ most of them didn't bother validating anything so they're really Black xxx katarank UCS2-with-surrogates not even surrogate pairs since they don't validate the data, åŒ–å¦.

Fortunately it's not something I deal with åŒ–å¦ but thanks for the info, will stop me getting caught out later. UTF-8 became part of the Unicode åŒ–å¦ with Unicode 2. ÅŒ–å¦ top of that implicit coercions have been replaced with implicit broken guessing of encodings for example when opening files. There are some other differences between the function which we will highlight below.

ÅŒ–å¦ an encoding based on the locale or the content of the file should be the exception and something the caller åŒ–å¦ explicitly. SiVal on May 28, åŒ–å¦, parent åŒ–å¦ Ø³ÙƒØ³ Ù†ÙŠÙƒ Ù…Ø±Ø§Øª ØµØ§ØØ¨Ùˆ ÙÙŠ Ø§Ù„ØÙ…Ø§Ù… [—]. ÅŒ–å¦ compression can take care of the wastefulness of using excessive space Valentine midget encode text - so it really only leaves efficiency, åŒ–å¦.

It might be more clear to say: "the resulting sequence will not represent the åŒ–å¦ code points, åŒ–å¦. Python 2 handling of paths is not good because there is no good abstraction over different operating systems, åŒ–å¦, treating them as byte strings is a sane lowest common denominator though. An interesting possible application for this is JSON parsers. An obvious example would be treating UTF as a fixed-width encoding, which is bad because you might end up cutting grapheme clusters in åŒ–å¦, and you can easily forget about normalization if you think about it that way.

Want to bet that someone will åŒ–å¦ decide that it's "just easier" to use it as an external encoding as well? This is a reasonable default, but it is not always appropriate, åŒ–å¦.

I thought åŒ–å¦ 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.

I get that every different thing åŒ–å¦ is a different Unicode number code point. In section 4, åŒ–å¦. So, we should be in good shape, åŒ–å¦.

See combining code points. If you like Generalized UTF-8, except that you åŒ–å¦ want to use surrogate pairs for big code points, and you åŒ–å¦ to totally disallow the UTFnative 4-byte sequence for them, you might like CESU-8, which does this, åŒ–å¦. Why shouldn't you slice or index them? These systems could be updated to UTF while preserving this assumption, åŒ–å¦. TazeTSchnitzel on May 27, åŒ–å¦, parent prev next [—]. Dylan on May 27, parent prev next [—].

If you åŒ–å¦ this is unjust and UTF-8 should åŒ–å¦ allowed to encode surrogate code points if it feels like it, then you might like Generalized UTF-8, which is exactly like UTF-8 except this is allowed.

Is the desire for a fixed length encoding misguided because indexing into a string is way less common than it seems? On further thought I agree.

Unicode: Emoji, accents, and international text

Therefore, the concept of Unicode scalar value was introduced and Unicode text was restricted to not contain any surrogate code point. Given the context of the byte:.

As the user of unicode I don't really care about that. This is incorrect. Coding for variable-width takes more effort, but it gives you a better result. When åŒ–å¦ use an encoding based on integral bytes, you can use the hardware-accelerated and often parallelized "memcpy" bulk byte åŒ–å¦ hardware features to manipulate your strings. It seems like those operations make sense in either case but I'm sure I'm missing something.

SimonSapin on May 27, parent prev next [—]. Thanks for the correction! Dylan on May 27, åŒ–å¦, root parent next [—], åŒ–å¦. To ensure consistent behavior across all platforms Mac, Windows, and Linuxyou should set this option explicitly. I åŒ–å¦ the post, åŒ–å¦. ÅŒ–å¦ term is linked to its definition.

The solution they settled on is weird, åŒ–å¦, but has some useful properties.

Sometimes that's åŒ–å¦ points, but more often it's probably characters or bytes. The encoding that was designed to be fixed-width is called UCS UTF is its variable-length successor.

Serious question -- is this a serious project or a joke? An number like 0xd could have a code unit meaning as part of a UTF surrogate pair, åŒ–å¦, and also be a totally unrelated Unicode code point. SimonSapin on May 28, åŒ–å¦, parent next [—]. As a trivial example, case conversions now cover åŒ–å¦ whole unicode range.

This kind of cat always gets out of the bag eventually. Existing software assumed that every UCS-2 character was also a code point, åŒ–å¦. That is the case where the UTF will actually end up being ill-formed. I'm åŒ–å¦ even sure why you would want to find something like the 80th code point in a string, åŒ–å¦.

Base R format control codes below using octal escapes. The others are characters common in Latin languages.

But since surrogate code points are real code points, you could imagine an alternative UTF-8 encoding for big code points: make a UTF surrogate pair, then UTF-8 encode the two code points of the surrogate pair hey, they are real code points! We would only waste 1 bit per byte, åŒ–å¦, which seems reasonable given just åŒ–å¦ many problems encoding usually represent.

Veedrac on May 27, åŒ–å¦, root parent prev next [—]. Most of the time however you certainly don't want to deal with codepoints. 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.

Most people aren't aware of that at all and it's definitely surprising. UTF-8 has a native representation for big code points that encodes åŒ–å¦ in 4 bytes. The name might throw you off, åŒ–å¦, but it's very åŒ–å¦ serious, åŒ–å¦.