| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
realpath() doesn't exist on Windows. Replace it with _fullpath() which
does the same thing, as far as I can see (at least for creating an
absolute path, it doesn't seem to canonicalize the path, or the docs
doesn't say it, yet since we are controlling the arguments from our
CMake script, it's not a big problem anyway).
This fixed the CI build for Windows failing with:
> undefined reference to `realpath'
|
|
Failing to do so, we always return the same language once we detected a
shortcut one, even after resetting. For instance, the issue happened on
the uchardet CLI tool.
|
|
Just commenting it out for now. This is just not good enough and could
take over detection when other probers have low confidence (yet
reasonable ones), returning an ugly WINDOWS-1252 with no language
detection. I think we should even just get rid of it completely. For
now, I temporarily uncomment it and will see with further experiments.
|
|
Nearly the same algorithm on both pieces of code now. I reintroduced the
mTypicalPositiveRatio now that our models actually gives the right ratio
(not the "first 512" meaningless stuff anymore).
In remaining differences, the last computation is the ratio of frequent
characters on the whole characters. For the generic detector, we use the
frequent+out sum instead. It works much better. I think that Unicode
text is much more prone to have characters outside your expected range,
while still being meaningful characters. Even control characters are
much more meaningful in Unicode.
So a ratio off it would make much too low confidence.
Anyway this confidence algorithm is already better. We seem to approach
much nicer confidence at each iteration, very satisfying!
|
|
The early version used to stop earlier, assuming frequent ranges were
used only for language scripts with a lot of characters (such as Korean,
or even more Japanese or Chinese), hence it was not efficient to keep
data for them all. Since we now use a separate language detector for
CJK, remaining scripts (so far) have a usable range of characters.
Therefore it is much prefered to keep as much data as possible on these.
This allowed to redo the Thai model (cf. previous commit) with more
data, hence get much better language confidence on Thai texts.
|
|
With all the changes we made, regenerate the Thai model which is of poor
quality. This new one is much better.
|
|
Cf. commit 872294d.
|
|
This allows to handle cases where some characters are actually
alternative/variants of another. For instance, a same word can be
written with both variants, while both are considered correct and
equivalent. Browsing a bit Slovenian Wikipedia, it looks like they only
use them for titles there.
I use this the first time on characters with diacritics in Slovene.
Indeed these are so rarely used that they would hardly show in the stats
and worse, any sequence using these in tested text would likely show as
negative sequences hence drop the confidence in Slovenian. As a
consequence, various Slovene text would show up as Slovak as it's close
enough and contains the same character with diacritics in a common way.
|
|
I was missing some characters, especially in the Slovak alphabet.
Oppositely the Slovene alphabet does not use 4 of the common ASCII
alphabet.
|
|
Argh! How did I miss this!
|
|
The alphabet was not complete and thus confidence was a bit too low.
For instance the VISCII test case's confidence bumped from 0.643401 to
0.696346 and the UTF-8 test case bumped from 0.863777 to 0.99.
Only the Windows-1258 test case is slightly worse from 0.532846 to
0.532098. But the overwhole recognition gain is obvious anyway.
|
|
In extreme case of more mCtrlChar than mTotalChar (since the later does
not include control characters), we end up with a negative value, which
in unsigned int becomes a huge integer. So because the confidence was so
bad that it would be negative, we ended up in a huge confidence.
We had this case with our Japanese UTF-8 test file which ended up
identified as French ISO-8859-1. So I just cast the uint to float early
on in order to avoid such pitfall.
Now all our test cases succeed again, this time with full UTF-8+language
support! Wouhou!
|
|
|
|
I was pondering improving the logics of the LanguageModel contents, in
order to better handle language with a huge number of characters (far
too much to keep a full frequent list while keeping reasonable memory
consumption and speed).
But then I realize that this happens for languages which have anyway
their own set of characters.
For instance, modern Korean is near full hangul. Of course, we can find
some Chinese characters here and there, but nothing which should really
break confidence if we base it on the hangul ratio. Of course if some
day we want to go further and detect older Korean, we will have to
improve the logics a bit with some statistics, though I wonder if
limiting ourselves to character frequency is not enough here (sequence
frequency is maybe a bit overboard). To be tested.
In any case, this new class gives much more relevant confidence on
Korean texts, compared to the statistics data we previously generated.
For Japanese, it is a mix of kana and Chinese characters. A modern full
text cannot exist without a lot of kanas (probably only old text or very
short texts, such as titles, could have only Chinese characters). We
would still want to add a bit of statistics to differentiate correctly a
Japanese text with a lot of Chinese characters in it and a Chinese
text which quotes a bit of Japanese phrases. It will have to be
improved, but for now it works fairly ok.
A last case where we would want to play with statistics might be if we
want to differentiate between regional variants. For instance,
Simplified Chinese, Taiwan or Hong Kong Chinese… More to experiment
later on. It's already a first good step for UTF-8 support with
language!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basically since we excluse non-letters (Control chars, punctuations,
spaces, separators, emoticones and whatnot), we consider any remaining
character as an off-script letter (we may have forgotten some cases, but
so far, it looks promising). Hence it is normal to consider a
combination with these (i.e. 2 off-script letters or 1 frequent letter +
1 off-script, in any order) as a sequence too. Doing so will drop the
confidence even more of any text having too much of these. As a
consequence, it expands again the gap between the first and second
contender, which seems to really show it works.
|
|
|
|
Detect various blocks of characters for punctuation, symbols, emoticons
and whatnot. These are considered kind of neutral in the confidence
(because it's normal to have punctuation, and various text nowadays are
expected to display emoticones or various symbols).
What is of interest is all the rest, which will then consider as
out-of-range characters (likely characters for other scripts) and will
therefore drop the confidence.
Now confidence will therefore take into account the ratio of all
in-range characters (script letters + various neutral characters) and
the ratio of frequent letters within all letters (script letters +
out-of-range characters).
This improved algorithm makes for much more efficient detection, as it
bumped most confidence in all our unit test, and usually increased the
gap between the first and second contender.
|
|
In particular, I prepare the case for English detection. I am not
pushing actual English models yet, because it's not so efficient yet. I
will do when I will be able to handle better English confidence.
|
|
Until now, Korean charsets had its own probers as there are no
single-byte encoding for writing Korean. I now added a Korean model only
for the generic character and sequence statistics.
I also improved the generation script (script/BuildLangModel.py) to
allow for languages without single-byte charset generation and to
provide meaningful statistics even when the language script has a lot of
characters (so we can't have a full sequence combination array, just too
much data). It's not perfect yet. For instance our UTF-8 Korean test
file ends up with confidence of 0.38503, which is low for obvious Korean
text. Still it works (correctly detected, with top confidence compared
to others) and is a first step toward more improvement for detection
confidence.
|
|
This prober comes from MR !1 on the main branch though it was too
agressive then and could not get merged. On the improved API branch, it
doesn't detect other tests as Johab anymore.
Also fixing it to work with the new API.
Finally adding a Johab/ko unit test.
|
|
CMake build was not completed and enum state nsSMState disappeared in
commit 53f7ad0.
Also fixing a few coding style bugs.
See discussion in MR !1.
|
|
|
|
The Hebrew Model had never been regenerated by my scripts. I now added
the base generation files.
Note that I added 2 charsets: ISO-8859-8 and WINDOWS-1255 but they are
nearly identical. One of the difference is that the generic currency
sign is replaced by the sheqel sign (Israel currency) in Windows-1255.
And though this one lost the "double low line", apparently some Yiddish
characters were added. Basically it looks like most Hebrew text would
work fine with the same confidence on both charsets and detecting both
is likely irrelevant. So I keep the charset file for ISO-8859-8, but
won't actually use it.
The good part is now that Hebrew is also recognized in UTF-8 text thanks
to the new code and newly generated language model.
|
|
Taken from random pages for each of these languages.
I now have a test for every 26 supported couple of (UTF-8, language).
These are all working very fine and detected at the right encoding and
language.
|
|
Some probers are based on character distribution analysis. Though it is
still relevant detection logics, we also know that it is a lot less
subtle than sequence distribution.
Therefore let's give a good confidence for a text passing such analysis,
yet not a near perfect one, thus leaving some chance for other probers.
In particular, we can definitely consider that if some text gets over
0.7 on sequence distribution analysis, this is a very likely candidate.
I had the case with the Finnish UTF-8 test which was passing (UTF-8,
Finnish) detection with a staggering 0.86 confidence, yet was overrided
by UHC (EUC-KR). This used to not be a problem when nsMBCSGroupProber
would check the UTF-8 prober first and stop there with just some basic
encoding detection. Now that we go further and return all relevant
candidates, some simpler detection algorithm which always return
too-good confidence is not the best idea.
|
|
I had the case with the Czech test which was considered as Irish after
being shortcutted far too early after only 16 characters. Confidence
values was just barely above 0.5 for Irish (and barely below for Czech).
By adding a threshold (at least 256 characters), we give a bit of
relevant data to the engine to actually make an informed decision. By
then, the Czech detection was at more than 0.7, whereas the Irish one at
0.6.
|
|
nsEscCharsetProber will still only return a single candidate, because
this is detected by a state machine, not language statistics anyway.
Anyway now it will also return the language attached to the encoding.
|
|
Returning only the best one has limits, as it doesn't allow to check
very close confidence candidates. Now in particular, the UTF-8 prober
will return all ("UTF-8", lang) candidates for every language with
probable statistical fit.
|
|
No functional change yet because all probers still return 1 candidate.
Yet now we add a GetCandidates() method to return a number of
candidates.
GetCharSetName(), GetLanguage() and GetConfidence() now take a parameter
which is the candidate index (which must be below the return value of
GetCandidates()). We can now consider that nsCharSetProber computes a
couple (charset, language) and that the confidence is for this specific
couple, not just the confidence for charset detection.
|
|
Since our whole charset detection logics is based on text having meaning
(using actual language statistics), just because a text is valid UTF-8
does not mean it is absolutely the right encoding. It may also fit other
encoding with maybe very high statistical confidence (and therefore a
better candidate).
Therefore instead of just returning 0.99 or other high values, let's
weigh our encoding confidence with the best language confidence.
|
|
Computing a logical number of sequence was a big mistake. In particular,
a language with only positive sequence would have the same score as a
language with a mix of only positive and probable sequence (i.e. 1.0).
Instead, just use the real number of sequence, but probable of sequence
don't bring +1 to the numerator.
Also drop the mTypicalPositiveRatio, at least for now. In my tests, it
mostly made results worse. Maybe this would still make sense for
language with a huge number of characters (like CJK languages), for
which we won't have the full list of characters in our "frequent" list
of characters. Yet for most other languages, we actually list all the
possible sequences within the character set, therefore any sequence out
of our sequence list should necessarily drop confidence. Tweaking the
result backup up with some ratio is therefore counter-productive.
As for CJK cases, we'll see how to handle the much higher number of
sequences (too many to list them all) when we get there.
|
|
Excepting ASCII, UTF-16 and UTF-32 for which we don't detect languages
yet.
|
|
|
|
Now making sure that we have a generic language model working with UTF-8
for all 26 supported models which had single-byte encoding support until
now.
|
|
Now the UTF-8 prober would not only detect valid UTF-8, but would also
detect the most probable language. Using the data generated 2 commits
away, this works very well.
This is still basic and will require even more improvements. In
particular, now the nsUTF8Prober should return an array of ("UTF-8",
language) couple candidate. And nsMBCSGroupProber should itself forward
these candidates as well as other candidates from other multi-byte
detectors. This way, the public-facing API would get more probable
candidates, in case the algorithm is slightly wrong.
Also the UTF-8 confidence is currently stupidly high as soon as we
consider it to be right. We should likely weigh it with language
detection (in particular, if no language is detected, this should
severely weigh down UTF-8 detection; not to 0, but high enough to be a
fallback in case no other encoding+lang is valid and low enough to give
chances to other good candidate couples.
|
|
It detects languages similarly to the single byte encoding detector
algorithm, based on character frequency and sequence frequency, except
it does it generically from unicode codepoint, not caring at all about
the original encoding.
The confidence algorithm for language is very similar to the confidence
algorithm for encoding+language in nsSBCharSetProber, though I tweaked
it a little making it more trustworthy. And I plan to tweak it even a
bit more later, as I improve progressively the detection logics with
some of the idea I had.
|
|
Adding generic language model (see coming commit), which uses the same
data as specific single-byte encoding statistics model, except that it
applies it to unicode code points.
For this to work, instead of the CharToOrderMap which was mapping
directly from encoded byte (always 256 values) to order, now we add an
array of frequent characters, ordered by generic unicode code points to
the order of frequency (which can be used on the same sequence mapping
array).
This of course means that each prober where we will want to use these
generic models will have to implement their own byte to code point
decoder, as this is per-encoding logics anyway. This will come in a
subsequent commit.
|
|
Syntax is: lang1:weight1,lang2:weight2…
For instance: `uchardet -wfr:1.1,it:1.05 file.txt` if you think a file
is probably French or maybe Italian.
|
|
Pretty basic, you can weight prefered language and this will impact the
result. Say the algorithm "hesitates" between encoding E1 in language L1
and encoding E2 in language L2. By setting L2 with a 1.1 weight, for
instance because this is the OS language, or usual prefered language,
you may help the algorithm to overcome very tight cases.
It can also be helpful when you already know for sure the language of a
document, you just don't know its encoding. Then you may set a very high
value for this language, or simply set a default value of 0, and set 1
for this language. Only relevant encoding will be taken into account.
This is still limited though as generic encoding are still implemented
language-agnostic. UTF-8 for instance would be disadvantaged by this
weight system until we make it language-aware.
|
|
It was displaying -v for both verbose and version options. The new
--verbose short option is actually -V (uppercase).
|
|
|
|
In particular, there is now a language code member.
|
|
This doesn't work for all probers yet, in particular not for the most
generic probers (such as UTF-8) or WINDOWS-1252. These will return NULL.
It's still a good first step.
Right now, it returns the 2-character language code from ISO 639-1. A
using project could easily get the English language name from the
XML/json files provided by the iso-codes project. This project will also
allow to easily localize the language name in other languages through
gettext (this is what we do in GIMP for instance). I don't add any
dependency though and leave it to downstream projects to implement this.
I was also wondering if we want to support region information for cases
when it would make sense. I especially wondered about it for Chinese
encodings as some of them seem quite specific to a region (according to
Wikipedia at least). For the time being though, these just return "zh".
We'll see later if it makes sense to be more accurate (maybe depending
on reports?).
|
|
|
|
This new option will give the whole candidate list as well as their
respective confidence (ordered by higher to lower).
|
|
Adding:
- uchardet_get_candidates()
- uchardet_get_encoding()
- uchardet_get_confidence()
Also deprecating uchardet_get_charset() to have developers look at the
new API instead. I was unsure if this should really get deprecated as it
makes the basic case simple, but the new API is just as easy anyway. You
can also directly call uchardet_get_encoding() with candidate 0 (same as
uchardet_get_charset(), it would then return "" when no candidate was
found).
|
|
Preparing for an updated API which will also allow to loop at the
confidence value, as well as get the list of possible candidate (i.e.
all detected encoding which had a confidence value high enough so that
we would even consider them).
It is still only internal logics though.
|
|
|
