Simple compression can take care of the wastefulness of using excessive space to encode text - so it really only leaves efficiency, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ. I also gave a short talk at!!
Yes, "fixed length" is misguided. Codepoints and characters are not equivalent. Having to interact with those systems from a 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, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ, for obvious reasons, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ.
Therefore, the concept of Unicode scalar value was introduced and Unicode text Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ restricted to not contain any surrogate code point.
Save Save. I have to disagree, I think using Unicode in Python 3 is currently easier than in any language I've used. That is not quite true, in the sense that more of the standard library has been made unicode-aware, and implicit conversions between unicode and bytestrings have been removed.
This browser is no longer supported. Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ on May 27, root parent next [—]. Dylan on May 27, parent prev next [—]. Nothing special happens to them v. 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.
Sort by: Most helpful Most helpful Newest Oldest. SimonSapin on May 27, parent prev next [—]. To dismiss this reasoning is extremely shortsighted. Skip to main content. That's just Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ, so we've gone through this whole unicode everywhere process so we can stop thinking Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ the underlying implementation details but Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ api forces you to have to deal with them anyway.
Khalifa University Students Experience the World of Clean Energy - Khalifa University
My complaint Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ that Python 3 is an attempt at breaking as little compatibilty with Python 2 as possible while making Unicode "easy" to use. We would Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ run out of codepoints, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ, and lecagy applications can simple ignore codepoints it doesn't understand.
This is an internal implementation detail, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ to be used on the Web. Just define a somewhat sensible behavior for every input, no matter how ugly. You can divide strings appropriate to the use. DasIch on May 28, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ, root parent next [—].
Thor Leach Sorry we can not reproduce this issue without your sample document, I would highly recommend you to raise a support ticket, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ, connect with a support engineer to investigate it deeper.
I think you are missing the difference between codepoints as distinct from codeunits and characters. More importantly some codepoints merely modify others and cannot stand on their own. DasIch on May 27, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ parent prev next [—].
I'm using Python 3 in production for an internationalized website and my experience has been that it handles Unicode pretty well. Coding for variable-width takes more effort, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ, but it gives you a better result. When a browser detects a major error, it should put an error bar across the top of the page, with something like "This page may display improperly due to errors in the page source click for details ".
Good examples for that are paths and anything that relates to local IO when you're locale is C. Maybe this has been your experience, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ, but it hasn't been mine. Now we have a Python 3 that's incompatible to Python 2 but provides almost no significant benefit, solves none of the large well known problems and introduces quite a few new problems, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ.
Why shouldn't you slice or index them? Dylan on May 27, root parent next [—]. If was to make a first attempt at a variable length, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ, but well defined backwards compatible encoding scheme, I would use something like the number of bits upto and including the first 0 bit as defining Oil latin number of bytes used for this character.
There's no good use case.
English to Chinese Document Translation Character Encoding Problem - Microsoft Q&A
Please Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ us know if you do not have support plan, we can help you to enable a free support ticket. SimonSapin on May 27, prev next [—]. Filesystem paths is the latter, it's text on OSX and Windows — although possibly ill-formed in Windows — but it's bag-o-bytes in most unices. Compatibility with UTF-8 systems, I guess? If I slice characters I expect a slice of characters.
I get that every different thing character is a different Unicode number code point. Pretty good read if you have a few minutes, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ. It also has the advantage of breaking in less random ways than unicode, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ. In fact, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ, even people who have issues with the py3 way often agree that it's still better than 2's. There is no coherent view at all. Veedrac on May 27, root parent prev next [—]. Most people aren't aware of that Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ all and it's definitely surprising.
The caller should specify the encoding manually ideally.
And unfortunately, I'm not anymore enlightened as to my misunderstanding. The Most romentic sex value 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, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ.
And I mean, I can't really think of any cross-locale requirements fulfilled by unicode. You can look at unicode strings 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.
We've future proofed the architecture for Windows, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ, but there is no direct work on it that I'm aware of. Right, ok. You could still open it as raw bytes if required. If you don't know the encoding of the file, how can you decode it? Stop there, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ. Regards, Yutong. On the guessing Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ when opening files, that's not really a problem.
There's not a ton of local IO, but Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ upgraded all my personal projects to Python 3. My complaint is not that I have to change my code.
When you use an encoding based on integral bytes, you can use the hardware-accelerated and often parallelized Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ bulk byte moving hardware features to manipulate your strings.
There Python 2 is only "better" in that issues will probably fly under the radar if you don't prod things too much. But inserting a codepoint with your approach would require all downstream bits to be shifted within Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ across bytes, something that would be a much bigger computational burden. As the user of unicode I don't really care about that.
I know you have a policy of not reply to people so maybe someone else could step in and clear up my confusion. Oh, joy. Yes, that bug is the best place to start. People used to think 16 bits would be enough for anyone. On further thought I agree. Man, what Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ the drive behind adding Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ extra complexity to life?!
Don't try to outguess new kinds of errors. 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.
When you say "strings" are you referring to strings or bytes? Keeping a coherent, consistent model of your text is a pretty important part of curating a language. As a trivial example, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ, case conversions now cover the whole unicode range.
Why wouldn't this work, apart from already existing applications that does not know how to do this, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ. SimonSapin on May 27, root parent prev next [—]. I think you'd lose Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ of the already-minor benefits of fixed indexing, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ, and there would be enough extra complexity to leave you worse off.
This kind of cat always gets out of the bag eventually. You can also index, slice and iterate over strings, all operations that you really shouldn't do unless you really now what you are doing. It certainly isn't perfect, but it's better than the alternatives. We would Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ waste 1 bit per byte, which seems reasonable given just how many problems encoding usually represent.
An interesting possible application for this is JSON parsers. I used strings to mean both. I certainly have spent very little time struggling with it. Every term is linked to its definition, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ. Well, Python 3's unicode Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ is much more complete. This was presumably deemed simpler that only restricting pairs. Have you looked at Python 3 yet? 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.
Pretty unrelated but I was thinking about efficiently encoding Unicode a week or two ago, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ. Can someone explain this in laymans terms?
Guessing encodings when opening files is a problem precisely because - as you mentioned - the caller should specify the encoding, not just sometimes but always.
English to Chinese Document Translation Character Encoding Problem
That is a unicode string that cannot Gold djgger encoded or rendered in any meaningful way. Slicing or indexing into unicode strings is a problem because it's not clear what unicode strings are strings of. Python however only gives you a codepoint-level perspective. A character can consist of one or more codepoints. There's some disagreement about the direction that Python3 went in terms of handling unicode.
In Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ browsers they'll happily pass around lone surrogates. It requires all the extra shifting, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ, dealing with the potentially partially filled last 64 bits and encoding and decoding to and from the external world.
It seems like those operations make sense in either case but I'm sure I'm missing something, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ. Guessing an encoding based on the locale Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ the content of the file should be the exception Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ something the caller does explicitly.
So if you're working in either domain you get a coherent view, the problem being Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ you're interacting with systems or concepts which straddle the divide or even worse may be in either domain depending Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ the platform. Python 2 handling of paths is not good because there is no good Hunping love over different operating systems, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ, treating them as byte strings is a sane lowest common denominator though.
That was the piece I was missing. Or is some of my above understanding incorrect, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ. Many people who prefer Python3's way of handling Unicode are aware of these arguments. That's OK, there's Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ spec. On top of that implicit coercions have been replaced with implicit broken guessing of encodings for example when opening files, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ.
The API in no way indicates that doing any of these things is a problem. SiVal on May 28, parent prev next [—]. It's rare enough to not be a top priority. Most of the time however you Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ don't want to deal with codepoints. Serious question -- is this a serious project or a joke? Bytes still have methods like. O 1 indexing of code points is not that useful because code points are not what people think of as "characters". I understand that for efficiency we want this to be as fast as Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ. This is all gibberish to me, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ.
It slices by codepoints?
Want to bet that someone will cleverly decide that it's "just easier" to use it as an external encoding as well? TazeTSchnitzel on May 27, prev next [—].
Priya and jon sin that's code points, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ, but more often it's probably characters or bytes, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ. Python 3 pretends that paths can be represented as unicode strings on all OSes, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ, that's not true.
How is any of that in conflict with my original points? I'm not even sure why you would want to find something like the 80th Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ point in a string. It isn't a position based on ignorance, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ. I guess you need some operations to get to those details if you need.
Sign in to follow. Fortunately it's not something I deal with often but thanks for the info, will stop me getting caught out later. SimonSapin on May 28, parent next [—]. Not that great of a read. Your complaint, and the complaint of the OP, seems Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ be basically, "It's different and I have to change my code, therefore it's bad. Hey, never meant to imply otherwise. This was gibberish to me too. One of Python's greatest strengths is that they don't just pile on random features, and keeping old crufty features from previous versions would amount to the same thing.
WTF8 exists solely as Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ internal encoding in-memory representationbut it's very useful there. Python 3 doesn't handle Unicode any better than Python 2, it just made it the default string. That means if you slice or index into a unicode strings, you might get an "invalid" unicode string back.
In all other aspects the situation has stayed as bad as it was in Python 2 or has gotten significantly worse. See combining code points. SimonSapin on May 28, root parent next [—].
The HTML5 spec formally defines consistent handling for many errors. Why this over, say, CESU-8? DasIch on May 27, root parent next [—]. The multi code point Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ feels like it's just an encoding detail in a different place.
Byte strings can be sliced and indexed no problems because a byte as such is something you may actually want to deal with, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ.
The WTF-8 encoding | Hacker News
It's time for browsers Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ start saying no to really bad HTML. Thanks for explaining. They failed to achieve both goals, Ø®Ø¯ÙŠØ¬Ù‡ Ø§Ù„ÙŠØ§ÙØ¹ÙŠ. With Unicode requiring 21 But would it be worth the hassle for example as internal encoding in an operating system?