UTF-8000: Unlimited UTF-8(utf-8000.jb2170.com) |
UTF-8000: Unlimited UTF-8(utf-8000.jb2170.com) |
Another idea that would work is to start an encoding with 0b10xxxxxx have subsequent 0b10xxxxxx bytes continue the encoding, and end it with 11xxxxxx. 0b1000_0000 (i.e. 128) is not allowed for the first byte of this sequence, and we add 127 to the resulting number (so each code point has only one representation) This way, the ♥ symbol (that’s 0x2665 or 9829 in decimal) would be represented as follows:
♥ → 0b0010_0110_0110_0101 → 0b0010_0101_1110_0110 (subtract 127) → 0b10_00_0010 0b10_0101_11 0b11_10_0110
This allows 18 bits to be encoded in three bytes, and, like UTF-8000, allows arbitrarily long sequences.
In the real world, the last time I needed to have a custom encoding, I went the other way and converted Unicode in to a 7-bit ASCII compatible encoding, where most ASCII control characters were converted into glyphs, as follows:
0123456789abcdef
0 .ÁÉÍÑÓÚÜ¡..—..«»
1 •áéíñóúü¿‘’.→“”©
2 .!"#$%&'()*+,-./
3 0123456789:;<=>?
4 @ABCDEFGHIJKLMNO
5 PQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_
6 `abcdefghijklmno
7 pqrstuvwxyz{|}~♥
“.” represents a control character here; only “null” (0x00), “line feed” (0x0a), “form feed” (0x0c), “tab” (0x09), “carriage return” (0x0d), and “escape” (0x1b) are control characters; the rest are printable glyphs. I used this character set for my blog, since my blog is processed using HTMLDOC (which I learned the hard way is buggy with full Unicode) and my own Lua script.
With Lua, Unicode regexes are not readily supported because its regular expression engine assumes a codepoint is only one byte long when forming character classes such as %u for upper case letters. My Lua code has character classes for the non-ASCII glyphs such as %t for all letters in this custom encoding.
I have made this encoding 7 bits because that gives me the option to use the eight bit for future expansion.
The real reason for so few glyphs is because, in addition to having things work nicely with code which assumes 8-bit codepoints, with the modern web, I need to send to the viewer the font a page will be rendered with (it would had been nice if Microsoft had open sourced Verdana, Georgia, and the rest of the core fonts, and had those fonts became a part of the browser standards, so we could have cross-platform font stacks, but oh well) [1], so I aggressively subset the font to minimize the page load time.
[1] I still wish for the day when Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Mozilla come together, decide to include “Noto” and “Noto Serif” with their browsers, so “font-family: Noto (Serif)” always renders the exact same font without having to download a font over the network when loading a web page.
♥ → 0b0010_0110_0110_0101 → 0b0010_0110_0010_0101 (subtract 64) → 0b10_00_0010 0b10_0110_00 0b11_10_0101
Code point 128 is encoded as follows:
128 → 0b1000_0000 → 0b0100_0000 (subtract 64) → 0b10_0000_01 0b11_00_0000
C99 can do up to over 10 bytes long (uint64_t) without a bignum library since 10 bytes gives us 60 bits. C23 gives us a bignum library so the sky’s the limit.
Again, I only need 7 bits to represent every character the font for my blog has.
This also means that the top half of ISO 8859-1 will have two representations with this encoding, but since they are letters, with the only symbols being × (multiplication) and ÷ (division), this should not be a security risk, unless one programs in Raku (which, ugh, gives meta significance to non-ASCII Unicode symbols).
I mean, I can derive from the text that this can encode arbitrarily large integers. So what? What's the point? I also understand that this is for fun.
This is why we need the KISS enforcers.
So in practicality, you’re going to want an arbitrary limit on this (the article suggests as much). But if you place a limit on it then you’ve got one implementation of the standard that can decode certain characters and another that can’t. Better to have one standard that puts a hard limit on the number of bytes and another standard that uses more bytes and so on.
What you will have is a potential denial-of-service attack - although this one isn't particularly great because there's zero amplification (they might as well just send garbage into your firewall)
Without endorsing this specific idea, I think maybe after over half a century of C that this argument shouldn't get in the way of a new standard. Pretty much every other language has managed to solve this problem, and the people who write new projects in C/C++ have decided they're not concerned about buffer overflows, so if someone decides to start a new project using something like this (or go out of their way to add support for it to an existing project), that's kind of on them. The rest of computing shouldn't get stuck in 1972 forever.
Python, Rust, Perl, etc. are all languages with a single actively maintained implementation and haven’t had the rigorous standardization C and POSIX utilities (Awk, /bin/sh, sed, etc.) have had.
Sometimes the environment forces a language choice.
Not until they decide to expand the emoji range, allocate space for all past and future fictional languages, as well as birdsong and dog barks.
Someone at the consortium is rubbing their hands with glee with all the newfound space.
But honestly, cool hack! If you invent a method to encode large numbers into bytes, why limit yourself to 24-bit numbers?
Nobody needs more than 4.47 trillion characters. (famous last words)
There cannot be 4 trillion characters because humans would need to know all of them and humans cannot know that many things.
I don’t actually know if this is LLM-generated, but phrasing like this is weirdly triggering to me now
512 would also for cryptographic addresses within cryptographic subnets (or 3 128-bit layers plus some extra bits), and 1024 would allow for up to 7 layers. It's not a completely silly idea.
Yggdrasil subnet addresses only have 56 bits of cryptographic entropy; there's a limited workaround where you increase work by searching for one with a zero prefix, but the cost to clone one can't be more than 2^56 times the cost to create it, which isn't adequate in cryptography. Individual addresses can also be created with 112 bits of entropy, which is barely adequate. That's why I say 128 bits total isn't enough for cryptography plus subnetting.
Especially with the layering, I would think you could put this in a routing header?
> Yggdrasil subnet addresses only have 56 bits of cryptographic entropy; there's a limited workaround where you increase work by searching for one with a zero prefix, but the cost to clone one can't be more than 2^56 times the cost to create it, which isn't adequate in cryptography. Individual addresses can also be created with 112 bits of entropy, which is barely adequate.
If you make it cost a dollar to compute, and you account for that getting 1000x cheaper during the time it needs to stay secure, that's around 70 trillion dollars to attack? I would call that "adequate". And ten cents / 7 trillion too.
(This does assume an algorithm that runs reasonably fast on normal hardware, so that "2^56 times the cost" mostly holds up in the face of dedicated cracking chips.)
> because all 4 of 2-byte UTF-8's mandatory content bits lie in the first-and-final start byte, we can explicitly rule out 11000000 (0xC0) and 11000001 (0xC1) as permanently invalid bytes. They will never ever appear anywhere in a valid UTF-8000 code unit!
It's more common for programs that say they support UTF-8 to not really do so at all. It wasn't that long ago that "UTF-8" support was often just single byte, so it was little more than ASCII. Even now it's common for programs to choke on the optional BOM. Yes, it is redundant, congratulations. The spec still explicitly allows it. Three and four byte character support is still not the best, too.
There's a long history of designs for these (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable-length_integer) that the author might be interested in. I used to think about these things myself, including the "zigzag encoding" for signed values (not a difficult idea; this "marvelous bijective mapping" is the standard one used in math class to demonstrate that the integers are countable, and the nice implementation properties are a consequence of the choice to "zig" from 0 to -1 first combined with how two's-complement works).
Another related nice property that UTF-8 has: substring search reduces to bytestring substring search. I.e. given two Unicode strings in UTF-8 encoding, you can check if one is a substring of the other by just treating them as bytestrings and checking if one bytestring is a substring of the other bytestring. This is a stronger property than self-synchronization: UTF-8 has it, but UTF-8000 doesn’t.
- fully-customizable emojis (think of a RPG-like character customization screen)
- heck, why not full jpegs/gifs?
- some unicode programming script (running Doom)
- ?
That said, some very minor (HN-style) nitpick:
> Otherwise for an n byte code unit this is (5n+1) / 8n, that is 5n+1 content bits out of a total of 8n bits from n bytes. We can rewrite this as (5/8) + 1/(8n) which moderately quickly approaches 5/8 = 62.5%. It is nice that this limit is nonzero and does not depend on n.
Isn't a limit by definition no longer dependent on n?
• E(S concatenated with T) = E(S) concatenated with E(T)†
• S starts with T iff E(S) starts with E(T)
• S ends with T iff E(S) ends with E(T)
• S contains T iff E(T) contains E(T)
This means that, as long as you know your encoded strings don't contain invalid UTF-8, you can do a great deal of your string processing on the byte-encoded form, which is enormously faster than decoding the strings before doing the string processing, permits efficient radix-256 tries, and is much smaller in many common cases.
It also bounds the work you have to do if you're processing a string starting from the end, while certain other encodings require looking back in the string arbitrarily far to figure out how to interpret the bytes you're looking at. This is particularly important for Boyer–Moore string search, but in many cases it's also an express trip to getting your code featured on https://www.tumblr.com/accidentallyquadratic.
In short, yes.
______
†Surprisingly, even this most basic homomorphism is not true of many other character encodings, which may need extra bytes to be inserted in between.
I think at least 7 should be allowed. 42 bits could contain all sorts of information.
"UTF-8000" is still ANSI-safe and although it loses some of the properties such as a header code only appearing once in a byte sequence, it is perfectly viable to encode arbitrarily sized unsigned integers.
"your first 2 extensions (5 and 6 bytes) were clearly envisioned. the standard (up to 4 bytes) was created to cover the size of unicode. i thought any more description would be a waste of paper. i think your extension from 7 to 8 bytes is a little hoaky. i requires reading the whole string rather than "knowing" the number of follow on bytes. so, i think the only thing new is the 7 byte version.
i appreciate the mail, but i really dont think it is useful. it is like replacing ipv6 with ipv50."
Self-synchronization is the idea that if you take an arbitrary Unicode-encoding-encoded text stream, and then do any combination of 1. flipping bits in it at random, 2. injecting random extra whole bytes into the stream, and 3. dropping random whole bytes from the stream, then each such change will corrupt at most one Unicode code-unit in the stream, and from that, corrupt at most one semantic grapheme-cluster encoded by the stream. No such change will corrupt the stream itself so as to leave the stream in an invalid/indeterminate state that a Unicode parser can't know how to recover from. You'll have a one-character-wide "hole", and then the stream will resume. Unless that hole occurred at a character that's critical to the stream's meaning on an application-semantics level, the document will still be valid/useful (especially for archival/forensic-recovery purposes); just like a printed document is still valid/useful even if you drip a bit of ink on it.
Unicode encodings are self-synchronizing at the byte-pattern level. But, much less often discussed, Unicode itself is also designed to be self-synchronizing in how it encodes interactions between code-units. (In other words, Unicode is designed to never have modal or stateful semantics, beyond the boundary of a single grapheme cluster.) And this really constrains how certain Unicode features can be, and historically have been, designed.
If you want a run of Unicode code-units to all be "tagged" or "colored" with some property, then, due to the self-synchronization requirement (i.e. due to the assumption that any single one of those bytes could be corrupted or blown away, including whatever metadata-encoding bytes your scheme wants to use), you have to either:
- define a "pre-colored" alphabet, and express your tagged content in that alphabet. (Think of e.g. the Unicode flag codepoints [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_indicator_symbol], which are essentially a special namespaced copy of the roman upper-case alphabet intended to be used only to spell out two-letter contiguous pairs that are [or at some point were] valid ISO country codes; where, when used in this way, the resulting 'colored'-letter-pair sequence has 'flag semantics', i.e. is meant to be rendered as a flag and machine-legible as a flag)
- or individually tag each and every one of those codepoints with its own tag/color codepoint (as in Unicode variation selectors)
- or interject binary-infix "operator" codepoints as glue between each codepoint in a codepoint sequence, so that those "operator" codepoints each affix together their immediate sibling codepoints, essentially constructing an abstract-Unicode-semantics list ADT "cons by cons", so that said list then may then be assigned its own semantics, e.g. being treated as a single grapheme-cluster with its own rendering (as in e.g. ZERO WIDTH JOINER used in its role in constructing complex emoji)
These encodings are all very high-overhead; but these are the kinds of trade-offs you have to make for self-synchronization to work.
And these trade-offs are sensible to make... if you're Ken Thompson in 1992, having to consider e.g. plaintexts being transmitted over raw RS232, or filesystems that just blast bytes to a spinning-rust disk without so much as a checksum, and then read them back "blindly" years later with that disk potentially highly-degraded.
But what if you live in the modern world, and you only care about holding and manipulating known-length strings in memory and/or embedded into code-signed (and thereby hashed) binaries; checksummed-block filesystems over rarely-corrupting NVMe; and transmission of data mostly over encrypted-stream protocols, where even the rare packet-level corruption that still TCP-checksums correctly, doesn't decrypt successfully, and therefore causes TLS-level retransmission?
Well, then you could define a much-more-concise reformulation of Unicode, that uses all the "forbidden" semantics-encoding techniques that Unicode itself avoids due to the self-synchronization constraint.
Where by "reformulation", I mean: a standard that keeps parity with Unicode in terms of what it can encode; and which at all times maintains a clearly-defined lossless bijective transformation between it and Unicode, evolving in lockstep with Unicode; but where Unicode and this formulation have their own distinct universes of codepoints, that compose using different rules, into the same ultimate sets of reachable grapheme-clusters with the same text-segmentation/collation/etc semantics.
I'm honestly kind of surprised that there isn't already a project somewhere to define an alternative Unicode formulation that looks like this.
It'd not only be potentially a highly-efficient representation for many in-memory string operations (that text shaping libraries would also love); it'd also likely perform impressively (compared to regular UTF-8) as a canonical representation for documents used to train+prompt LLMs. It'd give "more meaning per token", via all the repeated-per-codel overhead becoming once-per-sequence overhead; and it'd also allow many layers of meaning that are currently encoded via in-band protocols (ANSI escape codes, Markdown, HTML/XML, etc) that the LLM needs to learn additional recognition logic for, to instead be parsed out "during" initial text-stream recognition.
(And it's taking me real willpower not to go into depth on all the features such a formulation could have, and all the benefits it could provide. I should probably stop here before I nerd-snipe myself!)
Some day we'll need this when we finally realise we are not alone in the universe. Alien glyphs ftw.
edit: replaced false prophet site with wiki link for the original one and true timecube.com...lost to the sands of ...time.
It’s a fairly simple encoding which is UTF-8 compatible and allows codepoints to be arbitrarily large. It’s a real encoding proposal with a simple rigorous specification. I don’t have a use case for needing arbitrarily large codepoints, but for people who do, this makes more sense than hacks such as having surrogates in Unicode’s hi-bit private use area.
For compatibility with UTF-16:
o Restricted the range of characters to 0000-10FFFF (the UTF-16
accessible range).
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-16
The original spec had 31 bits (the UTF-32/UCS-4 range):
And also, for personal aesthetic reasons I hate that it limits the Unicode codepoint range to an awkward non-power-of-two number (now there are 0x110000 codepoints in total). UTF-8 and UTF-32's 2^31 feels much more natural.
Technically current UTF-8 only goes up to 21 bits (that's the current UNICODE range), for the encoding itself that is an arbitrary limit though, with the 'single lead byte' method of traditional UTF-8 it could go up to 36 bits "payload".
For emojies they already make heavy use of the Zero-Width-Joiner. So a woman firefighter is the woman emoji + ZWJ + fire engine. Sure the UTF-8000 approach is much better encoding size wise.
I mean, if someone's seriously going to try encoding birdsong and dog barks, at this point they're basically reinventing tokens for multi-modal language models.
However, Rust makes use of it for fast safety checks. Because rust strings must be valid utf8, if you want to take a substring at some range, eg "Hello, World!"[7..12] then it's very simple to just check bytes 7 and 12 and see if they are the start of a codepoint, no other scanning or parsing is required.
1. You can partition an input file at any offsets, parallelize, and adjust partition boundaries to a valid offset independently.
Without the property, parallelization is hard.
This is how mapreduce has been used to process large text files, except at line boundaries.
Now, for this that might not be a useful enough property, given that we already do similar things for newlines, and UTF-8 guarantees ASCII is always recognizable and hence newlines are always recognizable.
2. It might have been more useful in the era of dial-up where we still had occasional corrupted bytes in the transmission.
3. It helps regain sanity if e.g. a background process outputs bytes that get interleaved at the tty. For example, cat a large text file, the write boundaries won't always align at UTF-8 boundaries, then have a background process output get interleaved in an unfortunate way. If it self-synchronizes, it'll knock itself back into sync after a small amount of garbage.
It prevents vulnerabilities where an incorrect offset into a string could result in characters being read that aren’t in the original string (which could defeat a prior sanitization of the string).
I agree with you that Unicode urgently needs a scripting capability (*), but my plan was to just implement it using invisible tag characters [1] or something like that - but of course allowing a script to be written in a single codepoint is the much more elegant solution.
It also neatly solves the problem of how to write Unicode strings inside scripts inside Unicode strings and also scripts inside Unicode strings inside scripts inside Unicode strings.
(*) in RFC 04-01-2027
I, for one, welcome our new time-traveling overlords.
> - ?
Bad Apple, oh, wait: https://github.com/hsfzxjy/Bad-Apple-Font
- Unicode-as-a-character, meaning: a whole text displayed as if it were one character, made for infinite zooming
Yes, but the problem is that we have decades of examples of showing that even the best programmers in the world in practice will write code that isn't "standards compliant" in a way that prevents UB.
UTF-32 is fixed-width for UNICODE code points, but a single visual character (e.g. a "grapheme cluster") can be built from multiple code points. This is separate from the encoding algorithm though, grapheme clusters are mostly a problem for the high level code working with already decoded text data (text rendering, comparison, sorting etc...).
Truly the worst of all worlds.
A reasonable person would assume you’re talking about UTF-8000. It’s not completely new: RFC2279, the original UTF-8 proposal, worked exactly like UTF-8000 for codepoints 31 bits or smaller in size. It’s not backwards-incompatible: UTF-8000 is exactly like UTF-8 for 1, 2, and 3-byte long codepoints, and like UTF-8 codepoints for 4-byte long codepoints with a value of 0x10_ffff or smaller (so all UTF-8 codepoints encoded with the first byte being 0b1111_00xx or starting with the bytes 0b1111_0100 0b1000_xxxx).
It’s a backwards compatible way of encoding numbers in UTF-8 larger than 0x10_ffff or (0x7fff_ffff with the original RFC2279 proposal).
I agree that C isn’t the best language to start a new programming project in. There are things I don’t like about Rust, mainly that there’s only one implementation of it, but if I were to start a new project needing the speed of a system programming language, it makes a lot of sense.
> On a practical matter, it seems like a bad idea to have codepoints that can take up to an arbitrary number of bytes - this just screams buffer overflow problems.
My response was that I don't see "it would be hard to write correct code for this in C" to be a particularly useful objection. I'm honestly a bit confused by the reaction to my comments because it seems that every new reply seems to have an orthogonal objection to the previous one, but none of them seem to be actually addressing the point I've been trying to make.
"Single byte UTF-8" is ASCII. That's one of its most important properties.
> Even now it's common for programs to choke on the optional BOM
And they should... BOMs (and especially the hilarious UTF-8 BOM) are strictly a legacy Microsoft/Windows thing and should be abolished along with "extended" 8-bit ASCII encodings and UCS-2/UTF-16 (only UTF-32 makes sense, but should only be used at runtime to allow random access on UNICODE code points, but not for data exchange.
Otherwise I'd be inclined to fix the spelling error in the HTTP referrer.
How should a reader infer the bye order for a UCS-2 or UTF-16 file without a BOM? It seems like one would have to read until finding a code point that would be illegal under one ordering (but files might not include such a code point).
Similarly, a UTF-8 BOM is a useful flag to distinguish UTF-8 from other text encodings. You are right that the ambiguity goes away if those other encodings do, but people don't want to rewrite their legacy files. Some people don't want to use two bytes for common non-ASCII characters, so they are really attached to ISO-8859 or Windows-1252 or koi8r or whatever. CJK languages have their own encodings that are more efficient for their languages. UTF-8 is great for English speakers, but it's a compromise for everyone else, so they might reasonably want incompatible systems for their own use. UTF-8 BOM is a good "magic" sequence to detect encoding as long as people have non-UTF-8 files.
Simple: switch to UTF-8 as the only encoding standard for sharing text data, keep UTF-32 as 'internal' runtime format for random access to codepoints, and get rid of all other legacy encodings (UCS-2, UTF-16, Extended ASCII with code pages, and all the other region specific encodings that popped up in the 70s and 80s because UTF-8 wasn't invented yet.
This general switch to UTF-8 should have happend in the mid-to-late 1990s (e.g. together with the web becoming popular), and Microsoft alone is to blame for dragging this shit along for the next three decades. If all Microsoft tools would only save text data as UTF-8 starting by the end of the last century, but still support reading all sorts of encodings for a decade or so, the transition would have been finished by 2010. Alas, that never happened.
And tbh, the file size argument for alphabets that don't fit into 7-bit ASCII doesn't really make sense anymore today where images and videos make up the vast majority of data volume.
Same on macOS/iOS btw: AFAIK NSString is internally UTF-16, but I've never seen a UTF-16 text file on macOS, it's all UTF-8 (unless the file originated on Windows of course).
So I think if we ever were in a situation where > 1 million code points isn’t enough, then we should look at an entirely new way to serialise those code points.
https://artoria2e5.github.io/XB18030/
It seems when designing Unicode most energy went into emoji. And there was nothing left for fancy things like fixed-length string buffers. The only explaination why UTF8 Buffers aren't compatible with UTF16 Buffers... is a really strong emoji...