- Why should my program normalize strings?
- Which forms of normalization should I support?
- Where can I find out more details about NFC?
- Do I have to write a normalization module myself?
- Where can I see an online demo of normalization?
- What data can I ever, sometimes or never assume to be normalized? Data, character literals, character values passed as parameters or received as results?
- If unnormalized data is found, should an exception be raised, or the data be normalized forthwith, or only if necessary?
- What should be done about concatenation,
in view of the fact that concatenation can often break normalization?
- Are there any characters whose normalization forms under NFC, NFD, NFKC, and NFKD are all different?
- What is the difference is between W3C normalization and Unicode normalization?
- Isn't the canonical ordering for Arabic characters wrong?
- Does Unicode expect a user to accept having Unicode ordering forced on them when it makes no sense and is
not grounded on how the script works?
- But isn't there still a problem with Biblical Hebrew?
- Is text always the same length or shorter after being put into NFC?
- What are the maximum expansion factors for the different normalization forms?
- If I apply the same normalization operation on a string more than once, will the result change?
- Are there any exceptions to idempotency for Unicode normalization?
- What does the stability guarantee on Normalization promise?
- Does this include strings containing unassigned characters?
- Does this mean that if I take an identifier (as above) and normalize it on system A and system B, both with a
different version of normalization, I will get the same result?
- Are these exceptional circumstances of any importance in practical application?
- Are there implementation shortcuts to avoid the costs of normalization?
- What is the “quick check algorithm”?
- Do all characters with a non-zero combining class have the “Maybe” value for NFC_Quick_Check (and NFKC_Quick_Check)?
Q: Why should my program normalize strings?
A: Programs should always compare canonical-equivalent Unicode strings as equal (For
the details of this requirement, see
Section 3.2, Conformance Requirements and
Section 3.7, Decomposition, in The Unicode Standard). One of the easiest ways to
do this is to use a normalized form for the strings: if strings are transformed into their normalized forms, then canonical-equivalent ones
will also have precisely the same binary representation. The Unicode Standard provides well-defined normalization forms that can be used for
this: NFC and NFD.
For loose matching, programs may want to use the normalization forms NFKC and NFKD, which remove compatibility
distinctions. These two latter normalization forms, however, do lose information and are thus most appropriate for a restricted domain such
For more information, see UAX #15, Unicode Normalization Forms.
Q: Which forms of normalization should I support?
A: The choice of which to use depends on the particular program or system. NFC is the best form for general text, since it is more
compatible with strings converted from legacy encodings. NFKC is the preferred form for identifiers, especially where there are security
concerns (see UTR #36). NFD and NFKD are most useful for internal processing.
Q: Where can I find out more details about NFC?
A: See the page on
Mark Davis's site. It has specific examples of edge cases, plus information relevant to size,
implementation and testing.
Q: Do I have to write a normalization module myself?
A: No, different products offer normalization libraries. Perl, Java, Windows, and other platforms have support for
normalization, and there is open-source support through
Q: Where can I see an online demo of normalization?
To see an online demo of normalization, go to the Transforms demo
Q: What data can I ever, sometimes or never assume to be normalized? Data, character literals, character values
passed as parameters or received as results?
A: Interesting questions. Much legacy data is automatically in NFC, since the character sets are constrained to that.
But once the data has been converted to Unicode, and possibly subject to
change, exceptions to that restriction could occur.
Q: If unnormalized data is found, should an exception be raised, or the data be normalized
forthwith, or only if necessary?
All user-level comparison should behave as if it normalizes
the input to NFC. Most binary character matching that affects users should also behave as if it normalizes the input to NFC. Because it is rare to have
non-NFC text, an optimized implementation can do such comparison very quickly.
Q: What should be done about concatenation,
in view of the fact that concatenation can often break normalization?
A: While it is true that none of the normalization forms are
closed under string concatenation, an optimized concatenation function can be written to produce a normalized concatenation from normalized strings.
This is possible, because at most a few characters in the immediate area of the adjoined strings need processing. See the Introduction of
Q: Are there any characters whose normalization forms under NFC, NFD, NFKC, and NFKD are all different?
A. Yes. There are three such characters in the Standard:
|03D3 (ϓ) GREEK UPSILON WITH ACUTE AND HOOK SYMBOL
|03D4 (ϔ) GREEK UPSILON WITH DIAERESIS AND HOOK SYMBOL
|1E9B (ẛ) LATIN SMALL LETTER LONG S WITH DOT ABOVE
To see this example, consult the Normalization chart for Greek.
Q: What is the difference is between W3C normalization and Unicode normalization?
A: Unicode normalization comes in 4 flavors: C, D, KC, KD. It is C that is relevant for W3C normalization. W3C normalization also
treats character references (&#nnnn;) as equivalent to characters. For example, the text string "a&#xnnnn;" (where nnnn = "0301")
is Unicode-normalized since it consists only of ASCII characters, but it is not W3C-normalized, since it contains a representation of a combining
acute accent with "a", and in normalization form C, that should have been normalized to U+00E1.[JC]
Q: Isn't the canonical ordering for Arabic characters wrong?
A: The Unicode Standard does not guarantee that the canonical ordering of a combining character sequence for any particular
script is the 'correct' order from a linguistic point of view; the guarantee is that any two canonically equivalent strings will have the
same canonical order.
In retrospect, it would have been possible to have assigned combining classes for certain Arabic and Hebrew non-spacing marks (plus
characters for a few other scripts) that would have done a better job of making a canonically ordered sequence reflect linguistic order or
traditional spelling orders for such sequences. However, retinkerings at this point would conflict with stability guarantees made by the Unicode
Standard when normalization was specified, and cannot be done now.
Q: Does Unicode expect a user to accept having Unicode ordering forced on them when it makes no sense and
is not grounded on how the script works?
A: The correct approach, as present in the Unicode standard for many years, is to render canonically equivalent orderings the same
way. Once you do that, you will handle both normalized form, and whatever equivalent form users input, without worrying (or having to
precisely establish) what the 'correct' order is.
This is not a huge burden. The amount of time necessary to reorder combining marks is completely immaterial compared to the
time required for other work that needs to be done in rendering.
And notice that the rendering engine could reorder the marks internally in a different order if it wanted to, as long as that
order was canonically equivalent. In particular, any permutation of the non-zero CCC values can be used for a canonically equivalent internal
ordering. So internally a rendering engine could permute weights <27, 28,..., 32, 33> to <33, 27, 28,..., 32>, getting SHADDA before all vowel
signs, for example. The restrictions are that only non-zero ccc values can be changed, and that they can only be permuted, not combined or split:
you can't reassign two characters that had the same ccc values to different values
you can't reassign two characters that had different ccc values to the same value
you can't change characters with ccc = 0.
Q: But isn't there is still a problem with Biblical Hebrew?
A: There was a problem, but it has been addressed. Because the Hebrew points are defined to have distinct combining classes, their character
semantics is such that their ordering is immaterial in the standard. To handle those cases where visual ordering is
material, see the discussion of the Combining Grapheme Joiner (CGJ) in
Section 23.2, Layout Controls, in the Unicode Standard.
Q: Is text always the same length or shorter after being put into NFC?
Although it is usually the same length or shorter, it may expand. One of the goals for NFC was to match legacy practice where possible, and in
some cases, the legacy representation was decomposed. In addition, for stability, characters encoded after Unicode 3.0 do not compose, except in unusual
circumstances. See UAX #15 for more details.
Q: What are the maximum expansion factors for the different normalization forms?
A: It depends on the encoding form. Here is a table that shows the current worst cases in the standard:
Q: If I apply the same normalization operation on a string more than once, will the result change?
A: One of the key features of normalization is that repeatedly applying (the same form of) normalization does not change
the data further (idempotency). This means that normalized data can be renormalized without affecting it. [AF]
Q: Are there any exceptions to idempotency for Unicode normalization?
A: For earlier versions of Unicode, between Version 3.0 and Version 4.0.1, in some exceptional situations, normalization would have to be
applied twice before further applications would no longer change the data. This situation was addressed in
Corrigendum #5. [AF]
Q: What does the
stability guarantee on Normalization promise?
A: Take the example of an identifier that contains no unassigned characters and choose one of of the Normalization forms. What is guaranteed is
that such an identifier, when normalized under a given version of Unicode will not change even if the same kind normalization is applied to it again based on a
future version. The stability guarantee makes sure that idempotency applies across versions. [AF]
Q: Does this include strings containing unassigned characters?
A: No, the stability guarantee addresses only assigned characters. Unassigned code points which are assigned to characters in some future version
of the standard could be mapped to some other value by normalization, and so cannot be guaranteed to be stable across versions. [AF]
Q: Does this mean that if I take an identifier (as above) and normalize it on system A and system B, both with a
different version of normalization, I will get the same result?
A: In general, yes. Note, however, that the stability guarantee only applies to normalized data. There are indeed exceptional
situations in which un-normalized data, normalized using different versions of the standard, can result in different strings after normalization.
The types of exceptional situations involved are carefully limited to situations where there were errors in the definition of mappings for normalization,
and where applying the erroneous mappings would effectively result in corrupting the data (rather than merely normalizing it). [AF]
Q: Are these exceptional circumstances of any importance in practical application?
A: No. They affect only a tiny number of characters in Unicode, and, in addition, these characters occur extremely rarely, or only in very contrived
situations. Many protocols can safely disallow any of them, and avoid the situation altogether. [AF]
Q: Are there implementation shortcuts to avoid the costs of normalization?
A: Yes, there are a number of techniques which avoid the cost of
normalization where it isn’t actually required, or minimize the amount
of time required to determine whether a string needs to be normalized.
Much of the existing content on the internet is already in NFC, and
does not require re-normalization in contexts expecting to use NFC.
There are techniques which can verify that a string is in a particular
normalization form much faster than it would take to engage the actual
normalization algorithm to convert the same string to a normalization
form. This and other implementation techniques are described in UAX
#15, Unicode Normalization Forms.
Q: What is the “quick check algorithm”?
A: When normalizing a string to NFC, the first step is to do an NFD
decomposition of the string. Then characters are checked for re-
composition into a composite form. However, in most cases, a character
is already in the required final form. There is a precomputed
character property, NFC_Quick_Check (NFC_QC), available in
DerivedNormalizationProps.txt in the Unicode Character Database, which
can be used to quickly check whether any individual character in the
string has the value of Yes, No, or Maybe for NFC_QC. These values can
then be used to skip slower code paths during normalization and still
obtain the correct results. Similar precomputed quick check character
properties are also available for each other normalization form.
Q: Do all characters with a non-zero combining class have the “Maybe”
value for NFC_Quick_Check (and NFKC_Quick_Check)?
A: No. There are several hundred characters with a non-zero combining
class, but whose NFC_QC value is “Yes” or “No”, instead. Characters
for which NFC_QC=Maybe are those which can combine with a preceding
starting to form a composite character; that is not the case for all
combining marks. The quick check algorithm requires not only testing
the quick check property values, but also checking on the canonical
ordering of characters with non-zero combining classes.