I have a character appearing over the wire that has a hex value and octal value \xb1 and \261.
This is what my header looks like:
From: "\261Central Station <sip#...>"
Looking at the ASCII table the character in the picture is "±":
What I don't understand:
If I try to test the same by passing "±Central Station" in the header I see it converted to "\xC2\xB1". Why?
How can I have "\xB1" or "\261" appearing over the wire instead of "\xC2\xB1".
e. If I try to print "\xB1" or "\261" I never see "±" being printed. But if I print "\u00b1" it prints the desired character, I'm assuming because "\u00b1" is the Unicode format.
From the page you linked to:
The extended ASCII codes (character code 128-255)
There are several different variations of the 8-bit ASCII table. The table below is according to ISO 8859-1, also called ISO Latin-1.
That's worth reading twice. The character codes 128–255 aren't ASCII (ASCII is a 7-bit encoding and ends at 127).
Assuming that you're correct that the character in question is ± (it's likely, but not guaranteed), your text could be encoded ISO 8850-1 or, as #muistooshort kindly pointed out in the comments, any of a number of other ISO 8859-X or CP-12XX (Windows-12XX) encodings. We do know, however, that the text isn't (valid) UTF-8, because 0xb1 on its own isn't a valid UTF-8 character.
If you're lucky, whatever client is sending this text specified the encoding in the Content-Type header.
As to your questions:
If I try to test the same by passing ±Central Station in header I see it get converted to \xC2\xB1. Why?
The text you're passing is in UTF-8, and the bytes that represent ± in UTF-8 are 0xC2 0xB1.
How can I have \xB1 or \261 appearing over the wire instead of \xC2\xB1?
We have no idea how you're testing this, so we can't answer this question. In general, though: Either send the text encoded as ISO 8859-1 (Encoding::ISO_8859_1 in Ruby), or whatever encoding the original text was in, or as raw bytes (Encoding::ASCII_8BIT or Encoding::BINARY, which are aliases for each other).
If I try to print \xB1 or \261 I never see ± being printed. But if I print \u00b1 it prints the desired character. (I'm assuming because \u00b1 is the unicode format but I will love If some can explain this in detail.)
That's not a question, but the reason is that \xB1 (\261) is not a valid UTF-8 character. Some interfaces will print � for invalid characters; others will simply elide them. \u00b1, on the other hand, is a valid Unicode code point, which Ruby knows how to represent in UTF-8.
Brief aside: UTF-8 (like UTF-16 and UTF-32) is a character encoding specified by the Unicode standard. U+00B1 is the Unicode code point for ±, and 0xC2 0xB1 are the bytes that represent that code point in UTF-8. In Ruby we can represent UTF-8 characters using either the Unicode code point (\u00b1) or the UTF-8 bytes (in hex: \xC2\xB1; or octal: \302\261, although I don't recommend the latter since fewer Rubyists are familiar with it).
Character encoding is a big topic, well beyond the scope of a Stack Overflow answer. For a good primer, read Joel Spolsky's "The Absolute Minimum Every Software Developer Absolutely, Positively Must Know About Unicode and Character Sets (No Excuses!)", and for more details on how character encoding works in Ruby read Yehuda Katz's "Encodings, Unabridged". Reading both will take you less than 30 minutes and will save you hundreds of hours of pain in the future.
Related
I would like to know if :
all characters encoded in ANSI (1252) could be converted to UTF-8 without any problem.
all characters encoded in UTF-8 couldn't be converted to ANSI (1252) without any problem (example : Ǣ couldn't be converted to ANSI encoding).
Could you confirm for me that it corrects ?
Thanks !
Yes, all characters representable in Windows-1252 have Unicode equivalents, and can therefore be converted to UTF-8. See this Wikipedia article for a table showing the mapping to Unicode code points.
And since Windows-1252 is an 8-bit character set, and UTF-8 can represent many thousands of distinct characters, there are obviously plenty of characters representable as UTF-8 and not representable as Windows-1252.
Note that the name "ANSI" for the Windows-1252 encoding is strictly incorrect. When it was first proposed, it was intended to be an ANSI standard, but that never happened. Unfortunately, the name stuck. (Microsoft-related documentation also commonly refers to UTF-16 as "Unicode", another misnomer; UTF-16 is one representation of Unicode, but there are others.)
I have these values from a unicode database but I'm not sure how to translate them into the human readable form. What are these even called?
Here they are:
U+2B71F
U+2A52D
U+2A68F
U+2A690
U+2B72F
U+2B4F7
U+2B72B
How can I convert these to there readable symbols?
How about:
# Using pack
puts ["2B71F".hex].pack("U")
# Using chr
puts (0x2B71F).chr(Encoding::UTF_8)
In Ruby 1.9+ you can also do:
puts "\u{2B71F}"
I.e. the \u{} escape sequence can be used to decode Unicode codepoints.
The unicode symbols like U+2B71F are referred to as a codepoint.
The unicode system defines a unique codepoint for each character in a multitude of world languages, scientific symbols, currencies etc. This character set is steadily growing.
For example, U+221E is infinity.
The codepoints are hexadecimal numbers. There is always exactly one number defined per character.
There are many ways to arrange this in memory. This is known as an encoding of which the common ones are UTF-8 and UTF-16. The conversion to and fro is well defined.
Here you are most probably looking for converting the unicode codepoint to UTF-8 characters.
codepoint = "U+2B71F"
You need to extract the hex part coming after U+ and get only 2B71F. This will be the first group capture. See this.
codepoint.to_s =~ /U\+([0-9a-fA-F]{4,5}|10[0-9a-fA-F]{4})$/
And you're UTF-8 character will be:
utf_8_character = [$1.hex].pack("U")
References:
Convert Unicode codepoints to UTF-8 characters with Module#const_missing.
Tim Bray on the goodness of unicode.
Joel Spolsky - The Absolute Minimum Every Software Developer Absolutely, Positively Must Know About Unicode and Character Sets (No Excuses!).
Dissecting the Unicode regular expression
I am parsing a binary protocol which has UTF-8 strings interspersed among raw bytes. This particular protocol prefaces each UTF-8 string with a short (two bytes) indicating the length of the following UTF-8 string. This gives a maximum string length 2^16 > 65 000 which is more than adequate for the particular application.
My question is, is this a standard way of delimiting UTF-8 strings?
I wouldn't call that delimiting, more like "length prefixing". Some people call them Pascal strings since in the early days the language Pascal was one of the popular ones that stored strings that way in memory.
I don't think there's a formal standard specifically for just that, as it's a rather obvious way of storing UTF-8 strings (or any strings of bytes for that matter). It's defined over and over as a part of many standards that deal with messages that contain strings, though.
UTF8 is not normally de-limited, you should be able to spot the multibyte characters in there by using the rules mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8#Description
i would use a delimiter which starts with 0x11......
but if you send raw bytes you will have to exclude this delimiter from the data\messages processed ,this means that if there is a user input similar to that delimiter, you will have to convert it.
if the user inputs any utf8 represented char you may simply send it as is.
Suppose I allow my users to submit a form containing some text fields (I'm not talking about passwords). My users would occasionally use non-ASCII characters like Russian, Chinese, etc. so I use UTF-8 charsets in my database. The question is, should I really allow all of the possible UTF-8 characters? I had a look at the ASCII table and saw that characters 0 to 31 have nothing to do with text, except for newlines and white spaces. Characters 176 to 223 seem to be for decorative purposes :p. Should I restrict them?
The W3C skips these characters in their example regular expression in Multilingual form encoding:
$field =~
m/\A(
[\x09\x0A\x0D\x20-\x7E] # ASCII
| [\xC2-\xDF][\x80-\xBF] # non-overlong 2-byte
| \xE0[\xA0-\xBF][\x80-\xBF] # excluding overlongs
| [\xE1-\xEC\xEE\xEF][\x80-\xBF]{2} # straight 3-byte
| \xED[\x80-\x9F][\x80-\xBF] # excluding surrogates
| \xF0[\x90-\xBF][\x80-\xBF]{2} # planes 1-3
| [\xF1-\xF3][\x80-\xBF]{3} # planes 4-15
| \xF4[\x80-\x8F][\x80-\xBF]{2} # plane 16
)*\z/x;
Make sure it is valid UTF-8 and Unicode? Yes
Make sure it does not include certain characters, such as control codes? Probably not necessary
You should be aware that even though you are using UTF-8 in your form, you may not get valid UTF-8 from all user-agents when they send form data to you, and you will have to filter it as necessary. Invalid UTF-8 can take many forms, some of them being
Overlong encodings (which can lead to security issues)
Other invalid UTF-8 byte sequences, which may indicate that the user-agent ignored the character encoding and has submitted something like Windows-1252 or ISO-8859-1 encoding instead.
Code points that lie in reserved surrogate space in Unicode
All the above need to be filtered out during input, otherwise you are not storing valid Unicode.
If you want to serve valid HTML or XHTML, which use a subset of Unicode, you will need also need to filter out (either at input or output):
C0 control codes 0x00 to 0x19 (apart from tab, space, new line, carraige return)
0x7F
C1 control codes 0x80 to 0xBF
(probably) any code point above 0x10FFFF
No.
It's a very bad idea to try to "pre-clean" user input. What you consider "decorative" might be absolutely necessary to readers of another language. The best solution is to store the text as-is in the database, and then sanitize it before writing to the page.
When you say "the ASCII table" you're talking about this page, aren't you? That page is garbage. Only the first 128 characters (ie, 0..127) are "ASCII"; the mappings they show for the numbers 128..255 are from an ASCII extension called cp437. There are a lot of "extended ASCII's" out there, and cp437 is far from the most common one.
But I digress. Your question isn't about character encodings, it's about filtering, and a filter should be based on the properties of the characters: is it a letter, a digit, a control character? Most modern programming languages provide methods or functions to obtain such information, and most provide regex support as well. As for what you should filter, or whether you should filter at all, only you can know that.
It sounds like you need to learn more about character encodings and Unicode, though. Start here.
I have a procedure that imports a binary file containing some strings. The strings can contain extended ASCII, e.g. CHR(224), 'à'. The procedure is taking a RAW and converting the BCD bytes into characters in a string one by one.
The problem is that the extended ASCII characters are getting lost. I suspect this is due to their values meaning something else in UTF8.
I think what I need is a function that takes an ASCII character index and returns the appropriate UTF8 character.
Update: If I happen to know the equivalent Oracle character set for the incoming text can I then convert the raw bytes to UTF8? The source text will always be single byte.
There's no such thing as "extended ASCII." Or, to be more precise, so many encodings are supersets of ASCII, sharing the same first 127 code points, that the term is too vague to be meaningful. You need to find out if the strings in this file are encoded using UTF-8, ISO-8859-whatever, MacRoman, etc.
The answer to the second part of your question is the same. UTF-8 is, by design, a superset of ASCII. Any ASCII character (i.e. 0 through 127) is also a UTF-8 character. To translate some non-ASCII character (i.e. >= 128) into UTF-8, you first need to find out what encoding it's in.