I have several TSV tables (for any characters below ASCII 32 only common characters are contained, such as '\a\b\t\n\v\f\r\e'). I'd like to put them into a single stream. I think that ASCII control characters can be used to separate them. But I am not sure which ASCII control character (other than the ones already used as shown above) is standard for this purpose. Does anybody know what is the standard?
I don't know of standards for what you suggest.
Many protocols use envelopes with a count for what is to follow (TCP) or an index with offsets and lengths (tar, zip) or an arbitrary unique separator that is defined in the header (multipart MIME). There are some that are a simple series like yours but that have formatting that makes item separation obvious (XML element stream [which differs from a document because it has no root element]).
Is the idea that you might not know from the start how many tables and/or rows there are? (That is the use case for XML element streams.)
␀ seems reasonable, perhaps with final extra ␀ to mark the end of the stream (DOS/Windows program environment block).
␊ making an empty line also seems reasonable (like in SMTP).
␚(^Z) is a common file terminator from the days of CP/M and DOS.
Related
On Windows, if you have a UTF-16 sequence containing surrogate and that you insert that sequence in a RichEdit control, the RichEdit control handles this well and for each surrogate pair, it will only show one character.
The difficulty I'm facing is that when I query the selection, I'm getting the position in the UTF-16 stream, and not the character position as the number of visible characters in the control. I have a slow solution to find out the actual position, but it requires retrieving the text up to the selection in UTF-16 and then count myself the number of actual characters.
Did I miss something? Is there anything more efficient than that?
Thanks,
Manu
PS: To query the selection I'm using the EM_EXGETSEL message to fill a CHARRANGE structure.
The problem is real enough and it's only going to get more frequent. Single code points in UTF-16 only reach 64K characters and there are nearly 300K of them now.
What you will see is a pair of character positions (short values) that display as a single character. There will only ever be two, under the current standards.
In .Net code there are particular functions to do this work for you. I am not aware of any in WinApi. You can process the text using functions that test using the macros IS_HIGH_SURROGATE, IS_LOW_SURROGATE, and IS_SURROGATE_PAIR. I see no reason they should be any slower than built-in functions, but you have to write them (unless you can find some source code somewhere).
This article may be helpful: Are UTF16 (as used by for example wide-winapi functions) characters always 2 byte long?.
I'm currently building a hash key string (collapsed from a map) where the values that are delimited by the special ASCII unit delimiter 31 (1F).
This nicely solves the problem of trying to guess what ASCII characters won't be used in the string values and I don't need to worry about escaping or quoting values etc.
However reading about the history of this is it appears to be a relic from the 1960s and I haven't seen many examples where strings are built and tokenised using this special character so it all seems too easy.
Are there any issues to using this delimiter in a modern application?
I'm currently doing this in a non-Unicode C++ application, however I'm interested to know how this applies generally in other languages such as Java, C# and with Unicode.
The lower 128 char map of ASCII is fully set in stone into the Unicode standard, this including characters 0->31. The only reason you don't see special ASCII chars in use in strings very often is simply because of human interfacing limitations: they do not visualize well (if at all) when displayed to screen or written to file, and you can't easily type them in from a keyboard either. They're also not allowed in un-escaped form within various popular 'human readable' file formats, such as XML.
For logical processing tasks within a program that do not need end-user interaction, however, they are perfectly suitable for whatever use you can find for them. Your particular use sounds novel and efficient and I think you should definitely run with it.
Your application is free to accept whatever binary format it pleases. However, if you need to embed arbitrary binary data in your input, you need to escape whatever delimiters or other special codes your format uses. This is true regardless of which ones you choose.
I'd also not ignore Unicode. It's 2012, by now it's rather silly to work with an outdated model for dealing with text. If your input data is textual, handle it as such.
The one issue that comes to mind is why invent another format instead of using XML or JSON; or if you need a compact encoding, a "binary" variant of those two (Fast Infoset, msgpack, who knows what else), or ASN.1? There's probably a whole bunch of other issues that you'll encounter when rolling your own that the design and tooling for those formats already solved.
I work with barcodes in a warehouse setting. We use ASCII code 31 as a field-separator so that a single scan can populate multiple data fields with a single scan. So, consider the ramifications if you think your hash key could end up on a barcode.
Objective : To have multi language characters in the user id in Enovia v6
I am using utf-8 encoding in tcl script and it seems it saves multi language characters properly in the database (after some conversion). But, in ui i literally see the saved information from the database.
While doing the same excercise throuhg Power Web, saved data somehow gets converted back into proper multi language character and displays properly.
Am i missing something while taking tcl approach?
Pasting one example to help understand better.
Original Name: Kátai-Pál
Name saved in database as: Kátai-Pál
In UI I see name as: Kátai-Pál
In Tcl I use below syntax
set encoded [encoding convertto utf-8 Kátai-Pál];
Now user name becomes: Kátai-Pál
In UI I see name as “Kátai-Pál”
The trick is to think in terms of characters, not bytes. They're different things. Encodings are ways of representing characters as byte sequences (internally, Tcl's really quite complicated, but you shouldn't ever have to care about that if you're not developing Tcl's implementation itself; suffice to say it's Unicode). Thus, when you use:
encoding convertto utf-8 "Kátai-Pál"
You're taking a sequence of characters and asking for the sequence of bytes (one per result character) that is the encoding of those characters in the given encoding (UTF-8).
What you need to do is to get the database integration layer to understand what encoding the database is using so it can convert back into characters for you (you can only ever communicate using bytes; everything else is just a simplification). There are two ways that can happen: either the information is correctly shared (via metadata or defined convention), or both sides make assumptions which come unstuck occasionally. It sounds like the latter is what's happening, alas.
If you can't handle it any other way, you can take the bytes produced out of the database layer and convert into characters:
encoding convertfrom $theEncoding $theBytes
Working out what $theEncoding should be is in general very tricky, but it sounds like it's utf-8 for you. Once you've got characters, Tcl/Tk will be able to display them correctly; it knows how to transfer them correctly into the guts of the platform's GUI. (And in scripts that you actually write, you're best off replacing non-ASCII characters with their \uXXXX escapes, because platforms don't agree on what encoding is right to use for scripts. Alas.)
Is there a standard or open format which can be used to describe the formating of a flat file. My company integrates many different customer file formats. With an XML file it's easy to get or create an XSD to describe the XML file format. I'm looking for something similar to describe a flat file format (fixed width, delimited etc). Stylus Studio uses a proprietary .conv format to do this. That .conv format can be used at runtime to transform an arbitrary flat file to an XML file. I was just wondering if there was any more open or standards based method for doing the same thing.
I'm looking for one method of describing a variety of flat file formats whether they are fixed width or delimited, so CSV is not an answer to this question.
XFlat:
http://www.infoloom.com/gcaconfs/WEB/philadelphia99/lyons.HTM#N29
http://www.unidex.com/overview.htm
For complex cases (e.g. log files) you may consider a lexical parser.
About selecting existing flat file formats: There is the Comma-separated values (CSV) format. Or, more generally, DSV. But these are not "fixed-width", since there's a delimiter character (such as a comma) that separates individual cells. Note that though CSV is standardized, not everybody adheres to the standard. Also, CSV may be to simple for your purposes, since it doesn't allow a rich document structure.
In that respect, the standardized and only slightly more complex (but thus more useful) formats JSON and YAML are a better choice. Both are supported out of the box by plenty of languages.
Your best bet is to have a look at all languages listed as non-binary in this overview and then determine which works best for you.
About describing flat file formats: This could be very easy or difficult, depending on the format. Though in most cases easier solutions exist, one way that will work in general is to view the file format as a formal grammar, and write a lexer/parser for it. But I admit, that's quite† heavy machinery.
If you're lucky, a couple of advanced regular expressions may do the trick. Most formats will not lend themselves for that however.‡ If you plan on writing a lexer/parser yourself, I can advise PLY (Python Lex-Yacc). But many other solutions exists, in many different languages, a lot of them more convenient than the old-school Lex & Yacc. For more, see What parser generator do you recommend?
†: Yes, that may be an understatement.
‡: Even properly describing the email address format is not trivial.
COBOL (whether you like it or not) has a standard format for describing fixed-width record formats in files.
Other file formats, however, are somewhat simpler to describe. A CSV file, for example, is just a list of strings. Often the first row of a CSV file is the column names -- that's the description.
There are examples of using JSON to formulate metadata for text files. This can be applied to JSON files, CSV files and fixed-format files.
Look at http://www.projectzero.org/sMash/1.1.x/docs/zero.devguide.doc/zero.resource/declaration.html
This is IBM's sMash (Project Zero) using JSON to encode metadata. You can easily apply this to flat files.
At the end of the day, you will probably have to define your own file standard that caters specifically to your storage needs. What I suggest is using xml, YAML or JSON as your internal container for all of the file types you receive. On top of this, you will have to implement some extra validation logic to maintain meta-data such as the column sizes of the fixed width files (for importing from and exporting to fixed width). Alternatively, you can store or link a set of metadata to each file you convert to the internal format.
There may be a standard out there, but it's too hard to create 'one size fits all' solutions for these problems. There are entity relationship management tools out there (Talend, others) that make creating these mappings easier, but you will still need to spend a lot of time maintaining file format definitions and rules.
As for enforcing column width, xml might be the best solution as you can describe the formats using xml schemas (with the length restriction). For YAML or JSON, you may have to write your own logic for this, although I'm sure someone else has come up with a solution.
See XML vs comma delimited text files for further reference.
I don't know if there is any standard or open format to describe a flat file format. But one industry has done this: the banking industry. Financial institutions are indeed communicating using standardized message over a dedicated network called SWIFT. SWIFT messages were originally positional (before SWIFTML, the XMLified version). I don't know if it's a good suggestion as it's kinda obscure but maybe you could look at the SWIFT Formatting Guide, it may gives you some ideas.
Having that said, check out Flatworm, an humble flat file parser. I've used it to parse positional and/or CSV file and liked its XML descriptor format. It may be a better suggestion than SWIFT :)
CSV
CSV is a delimited data format that has fields/columns separated by the comma character and records/rows separated by newlines. Fields that contain a special character (comma, newline, or double quote), must be enclosed in double quotes. However, if a line contains a single entry which is the empty string, it may be enclosed in double quotes. If a field's value contains a double quote character it is escaped by placing another double quote character next to it. The CSV file format does not require a specific character encoding, byte order, or line terminator format.
The CSV entry on wikipedia allowed me to find a comparison of data serialization formats that is pretty much what you asked for.
The only similar thing I know of is Hachoir, which can currently parse 70 file formats:
http://bitbucket.org/haypo/hachoir/wiki/Home
I'm not sure if it really counts as a declarative language, since it's plugin parser based, but it seems to work, and is extensible, which may meet your needs just fine.
As an aside, there are interesting standardised, extensible flat-file FORMATS, such as IFF (Interchange File Format).
I need to generate a flat file with several different sections, each with different record structures. All data is delimited text, single line per record. What would be a good delimiting sequence, or mechanism to differentiate sections, given that records can contain line feeds etc. within quoted text fields?
Well, provided you are free of the necessity of editing the file with an inferior text editor or that the file be human-readable, you could use one of the four C0 control codes which are ASCII characters 28–31, which are meant for delimiting text records. They just never caught on because of the first two points.
You haven't specified what you intend to do with the file. What language do you use, etc.
If the file will contain different sections, and different structures, I would suggest using the YAML structure.
There are many libraries that allow for to reading/writing using YAML.