Hi, I really got interested in your question, so I decided to search for any information in the Internet. Look at the image. In my opinion, UTF-8 is a global standard for now.
The last two things is new and it will take a while for them to become global standard. CPUs will soon be 1nm and less. Add a comment. Active Oldest Votes. Improve this answer. I am not really convinced.
As such utf32string. As such - from a coding and simplicity point of view, UTF32 is the ONLY encoding avoiding multi word handling complexity and as such allows for less complex and less error prone coding. For instance, if you want to type an emoticon with a different skin tone, you need two codepoints instead of just one. Some glyphs can be represented in multiple ways.
And turns otherwise small projects into huge projects. So, in order to keep things sane, I am a proponent of "doing it well enough". In that spirit, it might be a good choice to say "I support UTF32 single code point only". Sign up or log in Sign up using Google.
In SJIS, there is overlap between the leading and trailing code unit values, and between the trailing and single code unit values. This causes a number of problems: It causes false matches. It prevents efficient random access. To know whether you are on a character boundary, you have to search backwards to find a known boundary. It makes the text extremely fragile. If a unit is dropped from a leading-trailing code unit pair, many following characters can be corrupted.
In UTF, the code point ranges for high and low surrogates, as well as for single units are all completely disjoint. None of these problems occur: There are no false matches. The location of the character boundary can be directly determined from each code unit value. The vast majority of SJIS characters require 2 units, but characters using single units occur commonly and often have special importance, for example in file names.
With UTF, relatively few characters require 2 units. The vast majority of characters in common use are single code units. Certain documents, of course, may have a higher incidence of surrogate pairs, just as phthisique is an fairly infrequent word in English, but may occur quite often in a particular scholarly text. Both Unicode and ISO have policies in place that formally limit future code assignment to the integer range that can be expressed with current UTF 0 to 1,, Even if other encoding forms i.
Over a million possible codes is far more than enough for the goal of Unicode of encoding characters, not glyphs. Unicode is not designed to encode arbitrary data. A: Unpaired surrogates are invalid in UTFs. A: Not at all. Noncharacters are valid in UTFs and must be properly converted. For more details on the definition and use of noncharacters, as well as their correct representation in each UTF, see the Noncharacters FAQ.
Q: Because most supplementary characters are uncommon, does that mean I can ignore them? A: Most supplementary characters expressed with surrogate pairs in UTF are not too common. However, that does not mean that supplementary characters should be neglected. Among them are a number of individual characters that are very popular, as well as many sets important to East Asian procurement specifications.
Among the notable supplementary characters are:. A: Compared with BMP characters as a whole, the supplementary characters occur less commonly in text. This remains true now, even though many thousands of supplementary characters have been added to the standard, and a few individual characters, such as popular emoji, have become quite common.
The relative frequency of BMP characters, and of the ASCII subset within the BMP, can be taken into account when optimizing implementations for best performance: execution speed, memory usage, and data storage.
Such strategies are particularly useful for UTF implementations, where BMP characters require one bit code unit to process or store, whereas supplementary characters require two. Strategies that optimize for the BMP are less useful for UTF-8 implementations, but if the distribution of data warrants it, an optimization for the ASCII subset may make sense, as that subset only requires a single byte for processing and storage in UTF This term should now be avoided.
UCS-2 does not describe a data format distinct from UTF, because both use exactly the same bit code unit representations. However, UCS-2 does not interpret surrogate code points, and thus cannot be used to conformantly represent supplementary characters. Sometimes in the past an implementation has been labeled "UCS-2" to indicate that it does not support supplementary characters and doesn't interpret pairs of surrogate code points as characters. Such an implementation would not handle processing of character properties, code point boundaries, collation, etc.
This single 4 code unit corresponds to the Unicode scalar value, which is the abstract number associated with a Unicode character. For more information, see Section 3. A: This depends. However, the downside of UTF is that it forces you to use bits for each character, when only 21 bits are ever needed. The number of significant bits needed for the average character in common texts is much lower, making the ratio effectively that much worse.
In many situations that does not matter, and the convenience of having a fixed number of code units per character can be the deciding factor. These features were enough to swing industry to the side of using Unicode UTF While a UTF representation does make the programming model somewhat simpler, the increased average storage size has real drawbacks, making a complete transition to UTF less compelling.
The following example determines the number of bytes required to encode a character array, encodes the characters, and displays the resulting bytes.
The UTF32Encoding object that is returned by this property may not have the appropriate behavior for your app. Instead, you can call the UTF32Encoding.
For a discussion of little endian byte order, see Encoding.
0コメント