Ðâ´ãâ¾ã‘âã‘‚ãâ°ã‘å½ã‘‰ãâµãâµ Ðâ·ãâ²ãâµãâ½ãâ¾. Ðâºãâ½ãâ¸ãâ³ãâ° 2. Ðâ»ã‘å½ãâ´ãâ¸ Readli Epub

Garbled text as a result of incorrect graphic symbol encoding

Mojibake ( 文字化け ; IPA: [mod͡ʑibake]) is the garbled text that is the outcome of text being decoded using an unintended character encoding.^[1] The event is a systematic replacement of symbols with completely unrelated ones, often from a different writing system.

This display may include the generic replacement character ("�") in places where the binary representation is considered invalid. A replacement can also involve multiple consecutive symbols, equally viewed in one encoding, when the same binary code constitutes one symbol in the other encoding. This is either considering of differing constant length encoding (as in Asian 16-bit encodings vs European 8-bit encodings), or the use of variable length encodings (notably UTF-8 and UTF-16).

Failed rendering of glyphs due to either missing fonts or missing glyphs in a font is a different consequence that is not to be confused with mojibake. Symptoms of this failed rendering include blocks with the code point displayed in hexadecimal or using the generic replacement character. Importantly, these replacements are valid and are the result of right fault treatment past the software.

Etymology [edit]

Mojibake means "character transformation" in Japanese. The word is composed of 文字 (moji, IPA: [mod͡ʑi]), "character" and 化け (broil, IPA: [bäke̞], pronounced "bah-keh"), "transform".

Causes [edit]

To correctly reproduce the original text that was encoded, the correspondence between the encoded information and the notion of its encoding must be preserved. As mojibake is the example of non-compliance between these, it can be achieved by manipulating the data itself, or just relabeling it.

Mojibake is often seen with text data that have been tagged with a wrong encoding; it may not fifty-fifty be tagged at all, but moved betwixt computers with unlike default encodings. A major source of trouble are communication protocols that rely on settings on each computer rather than sending or storing metadata together with the data.

The differing default settings between computers are in part due to differing deployments of Unicode among operating organisation families, and partly the legacy encodings' specializations for different writing systems of human being languages. Whereas Linux distributions generally switched to UTF-8 in 2004,^[2] Microsoft Windows generally uses UTF-16, and sometimes uses viii-bit lawmaking pages for text files in different languages.^{[ dubious – talk over ]}

For some writing systems, an example beingness Japanese, several encodings have historically been employed, causing users to meet mojibake relatively frequently. Every bit a Japanese example, the word mojibake "文字化け" stored as EUC-JP might exist incorrectly displayed as "ﾊｸｻ�ｽ､ｱ", "ﾊｸｻ嵂ｽ､ｱ" (MS-932), or "ﾊｸｻ郾ｽ､ｱ" (Shift JIS-2004). The aforementioned text stored as UTF-viii is displayed as "譁�蟄怜喧縺�" if interpreted as Shift JIS. This is further exacerbated if other locales are involved: the same UTF-8 text appears as "文字化ã'" in software that assumes text to be in the Windows-1252 or ISO-8859-1 encodings, usually labelled Western, or (for example) as "鏂囧瓧鍖栥亼" if interpreted as being in a GBK (China) locale.

Mojibake instance

Original text	文		字		化		け
Raw bytes of EUC-JP encoding	CA	B8	BB	FA	B2	BD	A4	B1
Bytes interpreted every bit Shift-JIS encoding	ﾊ	ｸ	ｻ	郾		ｽ	､	ｱ
Bytes interpreted as ISO-8859-1 encoding	Ê	¸	»	ú	²	½	¤	±
Bytes interpreted every bit GBK encoding	矢		机		步		け

Underspecification [edit]

If the encoding is non specified, it is upwardly to the software to decide it by other means. Depending on the type of software, the typical solution is either configuration or charset detection heuristics. Both are prone to mis-prediction in not-so-uncommon scenarios.

The encoding of text files is affected by locale setting, which depends on the user's language, brand of operating organisation and maybe other conditions. Therefore, the assumed encoding is systematically wrong for files that come up from a reckoner with a different setting, or even from a differently localized software inside the same system. For Unicode, ane solution is to use a byte gild mark, only for source code and other automobile readable text, many parsers don't tolerate this. Some other is storing the encoding as metadata in the file system. File systems that support extended file attributes tin can store this every bit user.charset.^[three] This also requires support in software that wants to have advantage of it, merely does not disturb other software.

While a few encodings are easy to detect, in detail UTF-8, there are many that are difficult to distinguish (see charset detection). A web browser may not be able to distinguish a page coded in EUC-JP and some other in Shift-JIS if the coding scheme is not assigned explicitly using HTTP headers sent along with the documents, or using the HTML document's meta tags that are used to substitute for missing HTTP headers if the server cannot be configured to transport the proper HTTP headers; see grapheme encodings in HTML.

Mis-specification [edit]

Mojibake also occurs when the encoding is wrongly specified. This often happens between encodings that are similar. For case, the Eudora email client for Windows was known to send emails labelled as ISO-8859-1 that were in reality Windows-1252.^[4] The Mac Os version of Eudora did not exhibit this behaviour. Windows-1252 contains extra printable characters in the C1 range (the most oft seen beingness curved quotation marks and extra dashes), that were not displayed properly in software complying with the ISO standard; this especially affected software running under other operating systems such as Unix.

Man ignorance [edit]

Of the encodings however in utilize, many are partially compatible with each other, with ASCII as the predominant common subset. This sets the stage for human ignorance:

• Compatibility can exist a deceptive property, every bit the common subset of characters is unaffected by a mixup of two encodings (see Bug in dissimilar writing systems).
• People think they are using ASCII, and tend to label whatever superset of ASCII they actually use equally "ASCII". Maybe for simplification, just fifty-fifty in bookish literature, the discussion "ASCII" tin be found used as an example of something not uniform with Unicode, where evidently "ASCII" is Windows-1252 and "Unicode" is UTF-8.^[i] Note that UTF-8 is backwards uniform with ASCII.

Overspecification [edit]

When there are layers of protocols, each trying to specify the encoding based on different information, the to the lowest degree sure information may be misleading to the recipient. For instance, consider a web server serving a static HTML file over HTTP. The graphic symbol set may be communicated to the client in any number of iii ways:

• in the HTTP header. This information can be based on server configuration (for case, when serving a file off deejay) or controlled past the application running on the server (for dynamic websites).
• in the file, as an HTML meta tag (http-equiv or charset) or the encoding aspect of an XML declaration. This is the encoding that the author meant to save the detail file in.
• in the file, as a byte guild marking. This is the encoding that the author's editor actually saved it in. Unless an adventitious encoding conversion has happened (by opening it in one encoding and saving it in another), this will be correct. It is, all the same, only available in Unicode encodings such as UTF-eight or UTF-16.

Lack of hardware or software support [edit]

Much older hardware is typically designed to back up only one grapheme prepare and the character set typically cannot be contradistinct. The graphic symbol tabular array contained within the display firmware volition be localized to accept characters for the country the device is to be sold in, and typically the table differs from country to state. As such, these systems will potentially display mojibake when loading text generated on a organization from a different country. Besides, many early operating systems do not support multiple encoding formats and thus will end upward displaying mojibake if made to display non-standard text—early versions of Microsoft Windows and Palm Os for example, are localized on a per-land footing and will only support encoding standards relevant to the country the localized version will be sold in, and will display mojibake if a file containing a text in a dissimilar encoding format from the version that the OS is designed to support is opened.

Resolutions [edit]

Applications using UTF-8 every bit a default encoding may attain a greater caste of interoperability considering of its widespread use and backward compatibility with United states-ASCII. UTF-8 as well has the power to be directly recognised past a unproblematic algorithm, then that well written software should be able to avoid mixing UTF-8 up with other encodings.

The difficulty of resolving an instance of mojibake varies depending on the awarding within which it occurs and the causes of it. Ii of the most common applications in which mojibake may occur are web browsers and word processors. Modern browsers and give-and-take processors oftentimes support a wide array of character encodings. Browsers often allow a user to change their rendering engine's encoding setting on the fly, while word processors let the user to select the appropriate encoding when opening a file. It may take some trial and fault for users to observe the right encoding.

The trouble gets more complicated when it occurs in an application that normally does non support a wide range of character encoding, such equally in a non-Unicode computer game. In this case, the user must change the operating system's encoding settings to lucifer that of the game. Notwithstanding, changing the system-wide encoding settings can also cause Mojibake in pre-existing applications. In Windows XP or later, a user also has the selection to employ Microsoft AppLocale, an application that allows the changing of per-awarding locale settings. Even so, changing the operating organization encoding settings is not possible on before operating systems such as Windows 98; to resolve this issue on earlier operating systems, a user would have to utilise third party font rendering applications.

Problems in unlike writing systems [edit]

English language [edit]

Mojibake in English texts mostly occurs in punctuation, such as em dashes (—), en dashes (–), and curly quotes (",",','), but rarely in character text, since nigh encodings agree with ASCII on the encoding of the English language alphabet. For example, the pound sign "£" will appear every bit "£" if it was encoded by the sender as UTF-eight but interpreted by the recipient every bit CP1252 or ISO 8859-1. If iterated using CP1252, this can lead to "£", "£", "ÃÆ'‚£", etc.

Some computers did, in older eras, have vendor-specific encodings which caused mismatch also for English language text. Commodore make viii-bit computers used PETSCII encoding, particularly notable for inverting the upper and lower case compared to standard ASCII. PETSCII printers worked fine on other computers of the era, only flipped the case of all letters. IBM mainframes utilize the EBCDIC encoding which does non match ASCII at all.

Other Western European languages [edit]

The alphabets of the Northward Germanic languages, Catalan, Finnish, German, French, Portuguese and Spanish are all extensions of the Latin alphabet. The additional characters are typically the ones that go corrupted, making texts simply mildly unreadable with mojibake:

• å, ä, ö in Finnish and Swedish
• à, ç, è, é, ï, í, ò, ó, ú, ü in Catalan
• æ, ø, å in Norwegian and Danish
• á, é, ó, ij, è, ë, ï in Dutch
• ä, ö, ü, and ß in German language
• á, ð, í, ó, ú, ý, æ, ø in Faroese
• á, ð, é, í, ó, ú, ý, þ, æ, ö in Icelandic
• à, â, ç, è, é, ë, ê, ï, î, ô, ù, û, ü, ÿ, æ, œ in French
• à, è, é, ì, ò, ù in Italian
• á, é, í, ñ, ó, ú, ü, ¡, ¿ in Castilian
• à, á, â, ã, ç, é, ê, í, ó, ô, õ, ú in Portuguese (ü no longer used)
• á, é, í, ó, ú in Irish gaelic
• à, è, ì, ò, ù in Scottish Gaelic
• £ in British English

… and their upper-case letter counterparts, if applicative.

These are languages for which the ISO-8859-1 character gear up (also known as Latin 1 or Western) has been in utilize. Nonetheless, ISO-8859-one has been obsoleted by two competing standards, the backward compatible Windows-1252, and the slightly altered ISO-8859-15. Both add the Euro sign € and the French œ, but otherwise any confusion of these three character sets does non create mojibake in these languages. Furthermore, it is ever safe to translate ISO-8859-1 as Windows-1252, and fairly rubber to translate it as ISO-8859-15, in particular with respect to the Euro sign, which replaces the rarely used currency sign (¤). Still, with the advent of UTF-viii, mojibake has become more common in certain scenarios, e.g. exchange of text files between UNIX and Windows computers, due to UTF-8's incompatibility with Latin-1 and Windows-1252. Simply UTF-eight has the ability to be straight recognised by a simple algorithm, and so that well written software should be able to avoid mixing UTF-8 up with other encodings, so this was well-nigh common when many had software non supporting UTF-8. Nearly of these languages were supported by MS-DOS default CP437 and other automobile default encodings, except ASCII, so problems when buying an operating organization version were less common. Windows and MS-DOS are not compatible however.

In Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and German language, vowels are rarely repeated, and it is usually obvious when one character gets corrupted, e.g. the second letter in "kÃ⁠¤rlek" ( kärlek , "honey"). This way, even though the reader has to judge between å, ä and ö, almost all texts remain legible. Finnish text, on the other paw, does characteristic repeating vowels in words like hääyö ("nuptials dark") which tin can sometimes return text very difficult to read (e.g. hääyö appears as "hÃ⁠¤Ã⁠¤yÃ⁠¶"). Icelandic and Faeroese accept ten and eight possibly confounding characters, respectively, which thus can make it more difficult to guess corrupted characters; Icelandic words like þjóðlöð ("outstanding hospitality") go about entirely unintelligible when rendered equally "þjóðlöð".

In German, Buchstabensalat ("letter salad") is a common term for this phenomenon, and in Castilian, deformación (literally deformation).

Some users transliterate their writing when using a computer, either by omitting the problematic diacritics, or by using digraph replacements (å → aa, ä/æ → ae, ö/ø → oe, ü → ue etc.). Thus, an author might write "ueber" instead of "über", which is standard practise in German when umlauts are not available. The latter practice seems to be amend tolerated in the German linguistic communication sphere than in the Nordic countries. For example, in Norwegian, digraphs are associated with archaic Danish, and may be used jokingly. Yet, digraphs are useful in communication with other parts of the world. As an example, the Norwegian football player Ole Gunnar Solskjær had his proper noun spelled "SOLSKJAER" on his dorsum when he played for Manchester United.

An artifact of UTF-viii misinterpreted as ISO-8859-i, "Ring 1000000 nÃ¥" (" Band meg nå "), was seen in an SMS scam raging in Norway in June 2014.^[5]

Examples

Swedish example:		Smörgås (open sandwich)
File encoding	Setting in browser	Result
MS-DOS 437	ISO 8859-i	Sm"rg†s
ISO 8859-one	Mac Roman	SmˆrgÂs
UTF-8	ISO 8859-ane	Smörgås
UTF-8	Mac Roman	Smörgås

Key and Eastern European [edit]

Users of Central and Eastern European languages can also exist affected. Considering most computers were not connected to whatsoever network during the mid- to late-1980s, at that place were different character encodings for every language with diacritical characters (run into ISO/IEC 8859 and KOI-8), often also varying by operating system.

Hungarian [edit]

Hungarian is another afflicted language, which uses the 26 basic English characters, plus the accented forms á, é, í, ó, ú, ö, ü (all present in the Latin-1 character set), plus the ii characters ő and ű, which are non in Latin-1. These two characters tin be correctly encoded in Latin-2, Windows-1250 and Unicode. Earlier Unicode became mutual in e-mail clients, e-mails containing Hungarian text often had the letters ő and ű corrupted, sometimes to the point of unrecognizability. It is common to respond to an e-mail rendered unreadable (see examples below) by character mangling (referred to every bit "betűszemét", significant "alphabetic character garbage") with the phrase "Árvíztűrő tükörfúrógép", a nonsense phrase (literally "Flood-resistant mirror-drilling machine") containing all accented characters used in Hungarian.

Examples [edit]

Source encoding	Target encoding	Result	Occurrence
Hungarian instance		ÁRVÍZTŰRŐ TÜKÖRFÚRÓGÉP árvíztűrő tükörfúrógép	Characters in cerise are incorrect and do non match the height-left example.
CP 852	CP 437	╡RV╓ZTδRè TÜKÖRFΘRαGÉP árvízt√rï tükörfúrógép	This was very common in DOS-era when the text was encoded by the Central European CP 852 encoding; notwithstanding, the operating organisation, a software or printer used the default CP 437 encoding. Please note that small-case letters are mainly correct, exception with ő (ï) and ű (√). Ü/ü is correct because CP 852 was made compatible with German. Nowadays occurs mainly on printed prescriptions and cheques.
CWI-2	CP 437	ÅRVìZTÿRº TÜKÖRFùRòGÉP árvíztûrô tükörfúrógép	The CWI-2 encoding was designed so that the text remains adequately well-readable even if the display or printer uses the default CP 437 encoding. This encoding was heavily used in the 1980s and early 1990s, just present it is completely deprecated.
Windows-1250	Windows-1252	ÁRVÍZTÛRÕ TÜKÖRFÚRÓGÉP árvíztûrõ tükörfúrógép	The default Western Windows encoding is used instead of the Central-European i. Only ő-Ő (õ-Õ) and ű-Ű (û-Û) are incorrect, but the text is completely readable. This is the nigh common fault nowadays; due to ignorance, information technology occurs often on webpages or fifty-fifty in printed media.
CP 852	Windows-1250	µRVÖZTëRŠ TšK™RFéRŕG P rvˇztűr‹ t k"rfŁr˘g‚p	Central European Windows encoding is used instead of DOS encoding. The use of ű is correct.
Windows-1250	CP 852	┴RV═ZT█RŇ T▄ChiliadÍRF┌RËThou╔P ßrvÝztűr§ tŘk÷rf˙rˇgÚp	Central European DOS encoding is used instead of Windows encoding. The use of ű is correct.
Quoted-printable	7-flake ASCII	=C1RV=CDZT=DBR=D5 T=DCK=D6RF=DAR=D3G=C9P =E1rv=EDzt=FBr=F5 t=FCk=F6rf=FAr=F3g=E9p	Mainly acquired by wrongly configured mail servers but may occur in SMS letters on some cell-phones too.
UTF-8	Windows-1252	ÁRVÍZTÅ°RŐ TÃœKÖRFÚRÃ"1000ÉP árvÃztűrÅ' tükörfúrógép	Mainly caused past wrongly configured web services or webmail clients, which were not tested for international usage (as the problem remains concealed for English texts). In this case the bodily (often generated) content is in UTF-8; notwithstanding, it is non configured in the HTML headers, so the rendering engine displays it with the default Western encoding.

Smoothen [edit]

Prior to the cosmos of ISO 8859-2 in 1987, users of various computing platforms used their own graphic symbol encodings such as AmigaPL on Amiga, Atari Club on Atari ST and Masovia, IBM CP852, Mazovia and Windows CP1250 on IBM PCs. Shine companies selling early on DOS computers created their own mutually-incompatible ways to encode Polish characters and simply reprogrammed the EPROMs of the video cards (typically CGA, EGA, or Hercules) to provide hardware lawmaking pages with the needed glyphs for Polish—arbitrarily located without reference to where other estimator sellers had placed them.

The state of affairs began to improve when, later pressure from bookish and user groups, ISO 8859-2 succeeded as the "Cyberspace standard" with limited support of the dominant vendors' software (today largely replaced past Unicode). With the numerous problems caused by the diversity of encodings, even today some users tend to refer to Polish diacritical characters as krzaczki ([kshach-kih], lit. "piffling shrubs").

Russian and other Cyrillic alphabets [edit]

Mojibake may be colloquially called krakozyabry ( кракозя́бры [krɐkɐˈzʲæbrɪ̈]) in Russian, which was and remains complicated by several systems for encoding Cyrillic.^[6] The Soviet Union and early on Russian Federation developed KOI encodings ( Kod Obmena Informatsiey , Код Обмена Информацией , which translates to "Code for Data Exchange"). This began with Cyrillic-only 7-bit KOI7, based on ASCII only with Latin and some other characters replaced with Cyrillic messages. Then came 8-bit KOI8 encoding that is an ASCII extension which encodes Cyrillic letters only with high-bit prepare octets corresponding to 7-bit codes from KOI7. Information technology is for this reason that KOI8 text, even Russian, remains partially readable afterward stripping the eighth bit, which was considered as a major advantage in the historic period of 8BITMIME-unaware email systems. For case, words " Школа русского языка " shkola russkogo yazyka , encoded in KOI8 and so passed through the loftier bit stripping process, terminate upwardly rendered equally "[KOLA RUSSKOGO qZYKA". Eventually KOI8 gained different flavors for Russian and Bulgarian (KOI8-R), Ukrainian (KOI8-U), Belarusian (KOI8-RU) and fifty-fifty Tajik (KOI8-T).

Meanwhile, in the West, Code page 866 supported Ukrainian and Belarusan too as Russian/Bulgarian in MS-DOS. For Microsoft Windows, Lawmaking Page 1251 added support for Serbian and other Slavic variants of Cyrillic.

Most recently, the Unicode encoding includes code points for practically all the characters of all the earth'south languages, including all Cyrillic characters.

Before Unicode, it was necessary to match text encoding with a font using the same encoding system. Failure to practice this produced unreadable gibberish whose specific advent varied depending on the verbal combination of text encoding and font encoding. For example, attempting to view not-Unicode Cyrillic text using a font that is express to the Latin alphabet, or using the default ("Western") encoding, typically results in text that consists almost entirely of vowels with diacritical marks. (KOI8 " Библиотека " ( biblioteka , library) becomes "âÉÂÌÉÏÔÅËÁ".) Using Windows codepage 1251 to view text in KOI8 or vice versa results in garbled text that consists mostly of capital letters (KOI8 and codepage 1251 share the aforementioned ASCII region, but KOI8 has uppercase letters in the region where codepage 1251 has lowercase, and vice versa). In general, Cyrillic gibberish is symptomatic of using the wrong Cyrillic font. During the early years of the Russian sector of the Globe Broad Web, both KOI8 and codepage 1251 were common. Every bit of 2017, one can all the same encounter HTML pages in codepage 1251 and, rarely, KOI8 encodings, likewise as Unicode. (An estimated 1.seven% of all web pages worldwide – all languages included – are encoded in codepage 1251.^[7]) Though the HTML standard includes the ability to specify the encoding for any given web page in its source,^[8] this is sometimes neglected, forcing the user to switch encodings in the browser manually.

In Bulgarian, mojibake is often called majmunica ( маймуница ), pregnant "monkey'due south [alphabet]". In Serbian, it is chosen đubre ( ђубре ), meaning "trash". Unlike the former USSR, S Slavs never used something similar KOI8, and Code Page 1251 was the dominant Cyrillic encoding there before Unicode. Therefore, these languages experienced fewer encoding incompatibility troubles than Russian. In the 1980s, Bulgarian computers used their ain MIK encoding, which is superficially similar to (although incompatible with) CP866.

Example

Russian example:		Кракозябры ( krakozyabry , garbage characters)
File encoding	Setting in browser	Result
MS-DOS 855	ISO 8859-1	Æá ÆÖóÞ¢áñ
KOI8-R	ISO 8859-1	ëÒÁËÏÚÑÂÒÙ
UTF-8	KOI8-R	п я─п╟п╨п╬п╥я▐п╠я─я▀

Yugoslav languages [edit]

Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian (the dialects of the Yugoslav Serbo-Croatian linguistic communication) and Slovenian add to the basic Latin alphabet the messages š, đ, č, ć, ž, and their capital counterparts Š, Đ, Č, Ć, Ž (only č/Č, š/Š and ž/Ž in Slovenian; officially, although others are used when needed, mostly in foreign names, as well). All of these letters are defined in Latin-2 and Windows-1250, while only some (š, Š, ž, Ž, Đ) exist in the usual OS-default Windows-1252, and are there because of another languages.

Although Mojibake can occur with whatever of these characters, the letters that are non included in Windows-1252 are much more prone to errors. Thus, even nowadays, "šđčćž ŠĐČĆŽ" is often displayed as "šðèæž ŠÐÈÆŽ", although ð, è, æ, È, Æ are never used in Slavic languages.

When confined to basic ASCII (virtually user names, for example), common replacements are: š→s, đ→dj, č→c, ć→c, ž→z (capital forms analogously, with Đ→Dj or Đ→DJ depending on word example). All of these replacements innovate ambiguities, so reconstructing the original from such a grade is usually done manually if required.

The Windows-1252 encoding is important because the English versions of the Windows operating system are most widespread, not localized ones.^{[ commendation needed ]} The reasons for this include a relatively small and fragmented market place, increasing the toll of loftier quality localization, a high degree of software piracy (in turn caused by loftier cost of software compared to income), which discourages localization efforts, and people preferring English versions of Windows and other software.^{[ citation needed ]}

The drive to differentiate Croation from Serbian, Bosnian from Croatian and Serbian, and at present even Montenegrin from the other iii creates many bug. At that place are many unlike localizations, using dissimilar standards and of different quality. There are no common translations for the vast amount of computer terminology originating in English. In the cease, people utilize adopted English language words ("kompjuter" for "computer", "kompajlirati" for "compile," etc.), and if they are unaccustomed to the translated terms may not empathize what some option in a bill of fare is supposed to do based on the translated phrase. Therefore, people who understand English, as well as those who are accustomed to English terminology (who are nigh, because English terminology is also by and large taught in schools because of these problems) regularly choose the original English versions of non-specialist software.

When Cyrillic script is used (for Macedonian and partially Serbian), the problem is similar to other Cyrillic-based scripts.

Newer versions of English Windows let the lawmaking page to exist changed (older versions crave special English versions with this support), simply this setting tin exist and frequently was incorrectly fix. For example, Windows 98 and Windows Me tin be ready to virtually non-correct-to-left single-byte code pages including 1250, merely only at install time.

Caucasian languages [edit]

The writing systems of certain languages of the Caucasus region, including the scripts of Georgian and Armenian, may produce mojibake. This trouble is peculiarly acute in the case of ArmSCII or ARMSCII, a set of obsolete character encodings for the Armenian alphabet which accept been superseded by Unicode standards. ArmSCII is not widely used considering of a lack of support in the computer industry. For example, Microsoft Windows does not support it.

Asian encodings [edit]

Another type of mojibake occurs when text is erroneously parsed in a multi-byte encoding, such as ane of the encodings for E Asian languages. With this kind of mojibake more than one (typically 2) characters are corrupted at once, e.thousand. "k舐lek" ( kärlek ) in Swedish, where " är " is parsed every bit "舐". Compared to the above mojibake, this is harder to read, since letters unrelated to the problematic å, ä or ö are missing, and is especially problematic for short words starting with å, ä or ö such as "än" (which becomes "舅"). Since 2 letters are combined, the mojibake besides seems more than random (over 50 variants compared to the normal three, not counting the rarer capitals). In some rare cases, an unabridged text string which happens to include a pattern of particular discussion lengths, such every bit the sentence "Bush-league hid the facts", may be misinterpreted.

Japanese [edit]

In Japanese, the phenomenon is, every bit mentioned, chosen mojibake ( 文字化け ). It is a item problem in Japan due to the numerous different encodings that exist for Japanese text. Aslope Unicode encodings like UTF-8 and UTF-16, there are other standard encodings, such as Shift-JIS (Windows machines) and EUC-JP (UNIX systems). Mojibake, as well equally being encountered by Japanese users, is besides often encountered by non-Japanese when attempting to run software written for the Japanese market.

Chinese [edit]

In Chinese, the aforementioned phenomenon is called Luàn mǎ (Pinyin, Simplified Chinese 乱码 , Traditional Chinese 亂碼 , meaning 'chaotic lawmaking'), and can occur when computerised text is encoded in ane Chinese grapheme encoding but is displayed using the incorrect encoding. When this occurs, it is often possible to fix the issue by switching the character encoding without loss of data. The situation is complicated because of the beingness of several Chinese character encoding systems in use, the virtually common ones being: Unicode, Big5, and Guobiao (with several astern uniform versions), and the possibility of Chinese characters being encoded using Japanese encoding.

Information technology is easy to identify the original encoding when luanma occurs in Guobiao encodings:

Original encoding	Viewed equally	Event	Original text	Notation
Big5	GB	?T瓣в变巨肚	三國志曹操傳	Garbled Chinese characters with no hint of original pregnant. The blood-red character is not a valid codepoint in GB2312.
Shift-JIS	GB	暥帤壔偗僥僗僩	文字化けテスト	Kana is displayed as characters with the radical 亻, while kanji are other characters. About of them are extremely uncommon and not in practical utilise in modernistic Chinese.
EUC-KR	GB	叼力捞钙胶 抛农聪墨	디제이맥스 테크니카	Random common Simplified Chinese characters which in most cases make no sense. Hands identifiable because of spaces betwixt every several characters.

An additional problem is caused when encodings are missing characters, which is common with rare or antiquated characters that are still used in personal or place names. Examples of this are Taiwanese politicians Wang Chien-shien (Chinese: 王建煊; pinyin: Wáng Jiànxuān )'s "煊", Yu Shyi-kun (simplified Chinese: 游锡堃; traditional Chinese: 游錫堃; pinyin: Yóu Xíkūn )'s "堃" and singer David Tao (Chinese: 陶喆; pinyin: Táo Zhé )'southward "喆" missing in Big5, ex-PRC Premier Zhu Rongji (Chinese: 朱镕基; pinyin: Zhū Róngjī )'s "镕" missing in GB2312, copyright symbol "©" missing in GBK.^[9]

Newspapers take dealt with this problem in diverse ways, including using software to combine 2 existing, similar characters; using a picture of the personality; or simply substituting a homophone for the rare grapheme in the hope that the reader would be able to make the correct inference.

Indic text [edit]

A similar effect tin can occur in Brahmic or Indic scripts of South Asia, used in such Indo-Aryan or Indic languages equally Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu), Bengali, Punjabi, Marä thi, and others, even if the character set employed is properly recognized by the application. This is because, in many Indic scripts, the rules by which individual letter symbols combine to create symbols for syllables may non be properly understood past a figurer missing the advisable software, even if the glyphs for the private alphabetic character forms are available.

One example of this is the old Wikipedia logo, which attempts to show the graphic symbol coordinating to "wi" (the first syllable of "Wikipedia") on each of many puzzle pieces. The puzzle piece meant to comport the Devanagari graphic symbol for "wi" instead used to display the "wa" grapheme followed by an unpaired "i" modifier vowel, easily recognizable as mojibake generated by a calculator non configured to brandish Indic text.^[10] The logo as redesigned every bit of May 2010^[ref] has fixed these errors.

The idea of Plain Text requires the operating arrangement to provide a font to brandish Unicode codes. This font is different from OS to Os for Singhala and it makes orthographically incorrect glyphs for some messages (syllables) across all operating systems. For instance, the 'reph', the short form for 'r' is a diacritic that unremarkably goes on tiptop of a manifestly letter. However, it is wrong to go on top of some messages similar 'ya' or 'la' in specific contexts. For Sanskritic words or names inherited by modern languages, such equally कार्य, IAST: kārya, or आर्या, IAST: āryā, it is apt to put it on superlative of these letters. By dissimilarity, for similar sounds in modern languages which result from their specific rules, it is non put on top, such as the discussion करणाऱ्या, IAST: karaṇāryā, a stalk form of the common word करणारा/री, IAST: karaṇārā/rī, in the Marä thi language.^[11] But it happens in most operating systems. This appears to exist a error of internal programming of the fonts. In Mac Bone and iOS, the muurdhaja l (dark l) and 'u' combination and its long form both yield wrong shapes.^{[ citation needed ]}

Some Indic and Indic-derived scripts, virtually notably Lao, were not officially supported by Windows XP until the release of Vista.^[12] Withal, various sites have made complimentary-to-download fonts.

Burmese [edit]

Due to Western sanctions^[xiii] and the tardily arrival of Burmese language support in computers,^{[xiv] [15]} much of the early Burmese localization was homegrown without international cooperation. The prevailing means of Burmese support is via the Zawgyi font, a font that was created as a Unicode font but was in fact only partially Unicode compliant.^[fifteen] In the Zawgyi font, some codepoints for Burmese script were implemented every bit specified in Unicode, but others were not.^[16] The Unicode Consortium refers to this every bit ad hoc font encodings.^[17] With the advent of mobile phones, mobile vendors such equally Samsung and Huawei but replaced the Unicode compliant arrangement fonts with Zawgyi versions.^[fourteen]

Due to these advertisement hoc encodings, communications between users of Zawgyi and Unicode would render equally garbled text. To get around this result, content producers would make posts in both Zawgyi and Unicode.^[18] Myanmar government has designated i Oct 2019 equally "U-Solar day" to officially switch to Unicode.^[xiii] The total transition is estimated to take two years.^[19]

African languages [edit]

In certain writing systems of Africa, unencoded text is unreadable. Texts that may produce mojibake include those from the Horn of Africa such as the Ge'ez script in Ethiopia and Eritrea, used for Amharic, Tigre, and other languages, and the Somali linguistic communication, which employs the Osmanya alphabet. In Southern Africa, the Mwangwego alphabet is used to write languages of Malawi and the Mandombe alphabet was created for the Democratic republic of the congo, but these are not mostly supported. Various other writing systems native to Due west Africa present like issues, such as the N'Ko alphabet, used for Manding languages in Republic of guinea, and the Vai syllabary, used in Republic of liberia.

Arabic [edit]

Some other affected language is Standard arabic (see below). The text becomes unreadable when the encodings practise not lucifer.

Examples [edit]

File encoding	Setting in browser	Issue
Arabic example:		(Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
Browser rendering:		الإعلان العالمى لحقوق الإنسان
UTF-viii	Windows-1252	الإعلان العالمى لحقوق الإنسان
	KOI8-R	О╩©ь╖ы└ь╔ь╧ы└ь╖ы├ ь╖ы└ь╧ь╖ы└ы┘ы┴ ы└ь╜ы┌ы┬ы┌ ь╖ы└ь╔ы├ьЁь╖ы├
	ISO 8859-v	яЛПиЇй�иЅиЙй�иЇй� иЇй�иЙиЇй�й�й� й�ий�й�й� иЇй�иЅй�иГиЇй�
	CP 866	я╗┐╪з┘Д╪е╪╣┘Д╪з┘Ж ╪з┘Д╪╣╪з┘Д┘Е┘Й ┘Д╪н┘В┘И┘В ╪з┘Д╪е┘Ж╪│╪з┘Ж
	ISO 8859-6	ُ؛؟ظ�ع�ظ�ظ�ع�ظ�ع� ظ�ع�ظ�ظ�ع�ع�ع� ع�ظع�ع�ع� ظ�ع�ظ�ع�ظ�ظ�ع�
	ISO 8859-2	اŮ�ŘĽŘšŮ�اŮ� اŮ�ؚاŮ�Ů�Ů� Ů�ŘŮ�Ů�Ů� اŮ�ŘĽŮ�ساŮ�
Windows-1256	Windows-1252	ÇáÅÚáÇä ÇáÚÇáãì áÍÞæÞ ÇáÅäÓÇä

The examples in this article do not have UTF-viii as browser setting, because UTF-viii is easily recognisable, then if a browser supports UTF-8 it should recognise it automatically, and not try to translate something else as UTF-8.

See also [edit]

• Lawmaking point
• Replacement graphic symbol
• Substitute character
• Newline – The conventions for representing the line interruption differ between Windows and Unix systems. Though most software supports both conventions (which is picayune), software that must preserve or display the divergence (due east.g. version command systems and data comparison tools) tin can get substantially more hard to use if not adhering to one convention.
• Byte gild mark – The well-nigh in-band mode to store the encoding together with the information – prepend it. This is by intention invisible to humans using compliant software, just will by pattern be perceived every bit "garbage characters" to incompliant software (including many interpreters).
• HTML entities – An encoding of special characters in HTML, by and large optional, simply required for certain characters to escape estimation every bit markup.

  While failure to apply this transformation is a vulnerability (see cross-site scripting), applying it too many times results in garbling of these characters. For example, the quotation marking " becomes ", ", " and and then on.

• Bush hid the facts

References [edit]

1. ^ ^{a b} King, Ritchie (2012). "Will unicode presently exist the universal code? [The Information]". IEEE Spectrum. 49 (7): 60. doi:10.1109/MSPEC.2012.6221090.
2. ^ WINDISCHMANN, Stephan (31 March 2004). "roll -v linux.ars (Internationalization)". Ars Technica . Retrieved five Oct 2018.
3. ^ "Guidelines for extended attributes". 2013-05-17. Retrieved 2015-02-15 .
4. ^ "Unicode mailinglist on the Eudora email client". 2001-05-thirteen. Retrieved 2014-eleven-01 .
5. ^ "sms-scam". June 18, 2014. Retrieved June 19, 2014.
6. ^ p. 141, Command + Alt + Delete: A Dictionary of Cyberslang, Jonathon Keats, World Pequot, 2007, ISBN 1-59921-039-8.
7. ^ "Usage of Windows-1251 for websites".
8. ^ "Declaring character encodings in HTML".
9. ^ "China GBK (XGB)". Microsoft. Archived from the original on 2002-10-01. Conversion map between Code page 936 and Unicode. Need manually selecting GB18030 or GBK in browser to view it correctly.
10. ^ Cohen, Noam (June 25, 2007). "Some Errors Defy Fixes: A Typo in Wikipedia's Logo Fractures the Sanskrit". The New York Times . Retrieved July 17, 2009.
11. ^ https://marä thi.indiatyping.com/
12. ^ "Content Moved (Windows)". Msdn.microsoft.com. Retrieved 2014-02-05 .
13. ^ ^{a b} "Unicode in, Zawgyi out: Modernity finally catches up in Myanmar's digital world". The Japan Times. 27 September 2019. Retrieved 24 December 2019. Oct. 1 is "U-24-hour interval", when Myanmar officially volition adopt the new system.... Microsoft and Apple helped other countries standardize years ago, simply Western sanctions meant Myanmar lost out.
14. ^ ^{a b} Hotchkiss, Griffin (March 23, 2016). "Battle of the fonts". Frontier Myanmar . Retrieved 24 December 2019. With the release of Windows XP service pack 2, complex scripts were supported, which fabricated it possible for Windows to render a Unicode-compliant Burmese font such as Myanmar1 (released in 2005). ... Myazedi, BIT, and later Zawgyi, circumscribed the rendering problem past adding extra lawmaking points that were reserved for Myanmar'southward ethnic languages. Not only does the re-mapping foreclose future ethnic language support, it likewise results in a typing system that can exist confusing and inefficient, even for experienced users. ... Huawei and Samsung, the two almost popular smartphone brands in Myanmar, are motivated but by capturing the largest marketplace share, which means they support Zawgyi out of the box.
15. ^ ^{a b} Sin, Thant (7 September 2019). "Unified under one font system equally Myanmar prepares to migrate from Zawgyi to Unicode". Rising Voices . Retrieved 24 December 2019. Standard Myanmar Unicode fonts were never mainstreamed unlike the private and partially Unicode compliant Zawgyi font. ... Unicode will improve natural language processing
16. ^ "Why Unicode is Needed". Google Code: Zawgyi Project . Retrieved 31 October 2013.
17. ^ "Myanmar Scripts and Languages". Frequently Asked Questions. Unicode Consortium. Retrieved 24 December 2019. "UTF-8" technically does not apply to ad hoc font encodings such as Zawgyi.
18. ^ LaGrow, Nick; Pruzan, Miri (September 26, 2019). "Integrating autoconversion: Facebook's path from Zawgyi to Unicode - Facebook Engineering". Facebook Engineering science. Facebook. Retrieved 25 December 2019. It makes advice on digital platforms difficult, every bit content written in Unicode appears garbled to Zawgyi users and vice versa. ... In club to better reach their audiences, content producers in Myanmar often post in both Zawgyi and Unicode in a unmarried post, not to mention English language or other languages.
19. ^ Saw Yi Nanda (21 Nov 2019). "Myanmar switch to Unicode to take two years: app developer". The Myanmar Times . Retrieved 24 December 2019.

External links [edit]

lewiscouged.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojibake

Share this post