Øâ¯ã˜â§ã™â€ Ù„ã™ë†ã˜â¯ Ùë†ã›å’ Øâ§ã˜â³ Øâªã›å’ Art Vista Virtual Grand Piano 2

Garbled text as a result of incorrect grapheme encoding

Mojibake (Japanese: 文字化け; IPA: [mod͡ʑibake]) is the garbled text that is the outcome of text existence decoded using an unintended graphic symbol encoding.^[1] The upshot is a systematic replacement of symbols with completely unrelated ones, often from a dissimilar writing organization.

This display may include the generic replacement character ("�") in places where the binary representation is considered invalid. A replacement can besides involve multiple sequent symbols, equally viewed in one encoding, when the same binary code constitutes one symbol in the other encoding. This is either because of differing constant length encoding (as in Asian 16-bit encodings vs European 8-bit encodings), or the apply 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 result 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 error handling by the software.

Etymology [edit]

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

Causes [edit]

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

Mojibake is oftentimes seen with text data that accept been tagged with a incorrect encoding; it may not even be tagged at all, but moved between computers with different default encodings. A major source of trouble are communication protocols that rely on settings on each reckoner rather than sending or storing metadata together with the information.

The differing default settings between computers are in part due to differing deployments of Unicode among operating system families, and partly the legacy encodings' specializations for different writing systems of human being languages. Whereas Linux distributions mostly switched to UTF-8 in 2004,^[ii] Microsoft Windows by and large uses UTF-xvi, and sometimes uses 8-scrap code pages for text files in different languages.^{[ dubious – discuss ]}

For some writing systems, an example beingness Japanese, several encodings have historically been employed, causing users to come across mojibake relatively often. As a Japanese example, the word mojibake "文字化け" stored equally EUC-JP might be incorrectly displayed equally "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 every bit UTF-eight 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 exist in the Windows-1252 or ISO-8859-1 encodings, usually labelled Western, or (for case) every bit "鏂囧瓧鍖栥亼" if interpreted as being in a GBK (China) locale.

Mojibake case

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

Underspecification [edit]

If the encoding is non specified, it is up to the software to make up one's mind 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-then-uncommon scenarios.

The encoding of text files is afflicted by locale setting, which depends on the user'southward language, brand of operating system and possibly other atmospheric condition. Therefore, the assumed encoding is systematically wrong for files that come from a reckoner with a different setting, or even from a differently localized software within the aforementioned system. For Unicode, one solution is to use a byte order marker, but for source code and other machine readable text, many parsers don't tolerate this. Another is storing the encoding every bit metadata in the file organization. File systems that support extended file attributes tin store this equally user.charset.^[iii] This also requires support in software that wants to accept advantage of information technology, but does not disturb other software.

While a few encodings are easy to notice, in detail UTF-8, there are many that are hard 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 non assigned explicitly using HTTP headers sent forth with the documents, or using the HTML certificate's meta tags that are used to substitute for missing HTTP headers if the server cannot exist configured to send the proper HTTP headers; see character encodings in HTML.

Mis-specification [edit]

Mojibake besides occurs when the encoding is wrongly specified. This oft happens between encodings that are similar. For example, 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 frequently seen being 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.

Human ignorance [edit]

Of the encodings yet in use, many are partially compatible with each other, with ASCII as the predominant common subset. This sets the phase for homo ignorance:

• Compatibility tin can be a deceptive property, as the common subset of characters is unaffected by a mixup of two encodings (see Problems in different writing systems).
• People recall they are using ASCII, and tend to characterization any superset of ASCII they actually use as "ASCII". Maybe for simplification, but fifty-fifty in academic literature, the word "ASCII" can be found used as an example of something non uniform with Unicode, where plain "ASCII" is Windows-1252 and "Unicode" is UTF-viii.^[1] Annotation that UTF-8 is backwards compatible with ASCII.

Overspecification [edit]

When there are layers of protocols, each trying to specify the encoding based on unlike information, the least certain data may exist misleading to the recipient. For example, 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 instance, when serving a file off deejay) or controlled by the application running on the server (for dynamic websites).
• in the file, equally an HTML meta tag (http-equiv or charset) or the encoding attribute of an XML declaration. This is the encoding that the author meant to save the detail file in.
• in the file, as a byte order mark. This is the encoding that the author's editor really saved information technology in. Unless an accidental encoding conversion has happened (by opening information technology in one encoding and saving information technology in some other), this will be correct. It is, however, just available in Unicode encodings such as UTF-8 or UTF-16.

Lack of hardware or software support [edit]

Much older hardware is typically designed to support only i character set up and the character set typically cannot be altered. The character tabular array contained within the display firmware volition be localized to take characters for the country the device is to exist sold in, and typically the tabular array differs from land to country. As such, these systems will potentially display mojibake when loading text generated on a arrangement from a different country. As well, many early operating systems do not support multiple encoding formats and thus will end up displaying mojibake if fabricated to display non-standard text—early versions of Microsoft Windows and Palm OS for case, are localized on a per-country ground and will only support encoding standards relevant to the land the localized version volition be sold in, and will display mojibake if a file containing a text in a different encoding format from the version that the Bone is designed to support is opened.

Resolutions [edit]

Applications using UTF-viii every bit a default encoding may achieve a greater caste of interoperability considering of its widespread utilise and backward compatibility with U.s.-ASCII. UTF-viii also has the ability to be directly recognised by a uncomplicated algorithm, so that well written software should be able to avoid mixing UTF-8 upwardly with other encodings.

The difficulty of resolving an example of mojibake varies depending on the application 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. Modernistic browsers and word processors often back up 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 allow the user to select the appropriate encoding when opening a file. It may take some trial and error for users to find the correct encoding.

The problem gets more complicated when it occurs in an application that commonly does non support a wide range of character encoding, such as in a non-Unicode computer game. In this case, the user must change the operating system'south encoding settings to match that of the game. However, changing the arrangement-wide encoding settings tin also cause Mojibake in pre-existing applications. In Windows XP or later on, a user also has the option to use Microsoft AppLocale, an awarding that allows the changing of per-application locale settings. Nevertheless, changing the operating organization encoding settings is not possible on before operating systems such equally Windows 98; to resolve this consequence on earlier operating systems, a user would have to employ tertiary party font rendering applications.

Bug in different writing systems [edit]

English [edit]

Mojibake in English texts by and large occurs in punctuation, such as em dashes (—), en dashes (–), and curly quotes (",",','), but rarely in character text, since almost encodings hold with ASCII on the encoding of the English alphabet. For example, the pound sign "£" will appear every bit "£" if it was encoded by the sender equally UTF-8 merely interpreted by the recipient as 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 acquired mismatch also for English text. Commodore make 8-fleck computers used PETSCII encoding, particularly notable for inverting the upper and lower example compared to standard ASCII. PETSCII printers worked fine on other computers of the era, but flipped the case of all letters. IBM mainframes apply the EBCDIC encoding which does non match ASCII at all.

Other Western European languages [edit]

The alphabets of the North Germanic languages, Catalan, Finnish, German, French, Portuguese and Spanish are all extensions of the Latin alphabet. The additional characters are typically the ones that become corrupted, making texts only 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
• 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 Spanish
• 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
• à, è, ì, ò, ù in Scottish Gaelic
• £ in British English

… and their uppercase counterparts, if applicable.

These are languages for which the ISO-8859-i character prepare (as well known equally Latin 1 or Western) has been in use. Even so, ISO-8859-ane has been obsoleted by two competing standards, the backward compatible Windows-1252, and the slightly altered ISO-8859-15. Both add together the Euro sign € and the French œ, just otherwise whatsoever confusion of these three grapheme sets does not create mojibake in these languages. Furthermore, it is e'er safety to interpret ISO-8859-one every bit Windows-1252, and adequately safe to interpret it as ISO-8859-xv, in item with respect to the Euro sign, which replaces the rarely used currency sign (¤). However, with the advent of UTF-eight, mojibake has become more mutual in certain scenarios, east.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 power to be direct recognised by a uncomplicated algorithm, so that well written software should be able to avoid mixing UTF-viii up with other encodings, so this was most mutual when many had software not supporting UTF-8. Most of these languages were supported by MS-DOS default CP437 and other machine default encodings, except ASCII, so issues when buying an operating organization version were less common. Windows and MS-DOS are not compatible however.

In Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and German, vowels are rarely repeated, and it is unremarkably obvious when one grapheme gets corrupted, e.m. the 2nd letter of the alphabet in "kÃ⁠¤rlek" ( kärlek , "love"). This way, even though the reader has to estimate between å, ä and ö, almost all texts remain legible. Finnish text, on the other paw, does characteristic repeating vowels in words similar hääyö ("nuptials dark") which can sometimes render text very difficult to read (e.g. hääyö appears equally "hÃ⁠¤Ã⁠¤yÃ⁠¶"). Icelandic and Faroese accept ten and eight possibly confounding characters, respectively, which thus can make it more than difficult to approximate corrupted characters; Icelandic words like þjóðlöð ("outstanding hospitality") become almost entirely unintelligible when rendered every bit "þjóðlöð".

In German, Buchstabensalat ("letter salad") is a common term for this phenomenon, and in Spanish, 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 language when umlauts are non available. The latter practice seems to be better tolerated in the High german language sphere than in the Nordic countries. For example, in Norwegian, digraphs are associated with primitive Danish, and may be used jokingly. However, digraphs are useful in advice with other parts of the world. Equally an instance, the Norwegian football player Ole Gunnar Solskjær had his name spelled "SOLSKJAER" on his dorsum when he played for Manchester United.

An antiquity of UTF-8 misinterpreted as ISO-8859-one, "Ring 1000000 nÃ¥" (" Ring million nå "), was seen in an SMS scam raging in Kingdom of norway in June 2014.^[v]

Examples

Swedish example:		Smörgås (open sandwich)
File encoding	Setting in browser	Result
MS-DOS 437	ISO 8859-1	Sm"rg†s
ISO 8859-one	Mac Roman	SmˆrgÂs
UTF-8	ISO 8859-i	Smörgås
UTF-eight	Mac Roman	Smörgådue south

Cardinal and Eastern European [edit]

Users of Central and Eastern European languages tin also exist affected. Because most computers were non connected to whatever network during the mid- to tardily-1980s, in that location were different character encodings for every linguistic communication with diacritical characters (see ISO/IEC 8859 and KOI-viii), often also varying by operating arrangement.

Hungarian [edit]

Hungarian is another affected language, which uses the 26 basic English characters, plus the absolute forms á, é, í, ó, ú, ö, ü (all nowadays in the Latin-1 graphic symbol ready), plus the 2 characters ő and ű, which are not in Latin-i. These ii characters can be correctly encoded in Latin-2, Windows-1250 and Unicode. Before Unicode became common in email clients, e-mails containing Hungarian text often had the messages ő and ű corrupted, sometimes to the point of unrecognizability. It is common to reply to an e-mail service rendered unreadable (run into examples below) by character mangling (referred to as "betűszemét", meaning "letter of the alphabet 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 red are incorrect and do not match the top-left case.
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; all the same, the operating arrangement, 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 considering CP 852 was made uniform with German. Nowadays occurs mainly on printed prescriptions and cheques.
CWI-ii	CP 437	ÅRVìZTÿRº TÜKÖRFùRòGÉP árvíztûrô tükörfúrógép	The CWI-ii encoding was designed and then that the text remains fairly 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, but nowadays it is completely deprecated.
Windows-1250	Windows-1252	ÁRVÍZTÛRÕ TÜKÖRFÚRÓGÉP árvíztûrõ tükörfúrógép	The default Western Windows encoding is used instead of the Key-European one. Only ő-Ő (õ-Õ) and ű-Ű (û-Û) are incorrect, but the text is completely readable. This is the nigh mutual error nowadays; due to ignorance, it occurs oftentimes on webpages or even in printed media.
CP 852	Windows-1250	µRVÖZTëRŠ TšK™RFéRŕOne thousand P rvˇztűr‹ t k"rfŁr˘g‚p	Central European Windows encoding is used instead of DOS encoding. The employ of ű is right.
Windows-1250	CP 852	┴RV═ZT█RŇ T▄MÍRF┌RËG╔P ßrvÝztűr§ tŘone thousand÷rf˙rˇgÚp	Central European DOS encoding is used instead of Windows encoding. The use of ű is correct.
Quoted-printable	vii-bit ASCII	=C1RV=CDZT=DBR=D5 T=DCOne thousand=D6RF=DAR=D3G=C9P =E1rv=EDzt=FBr=F5 t=FCk=F6rf=FAr=F3thousand=E9p	Mainly acquired by wrongly configured mail service servers only may occur in SMS messages on some cell-phones as well.
UTF-eight	Windows-1252	ÁRVÍZTÅ°RŐ TÃœKÖRFÚRÃ"GÉP árvÃztűrÅ' tükörfúróone thousandép	Mainly caused by wrongly configured spider web services or webmail clients, which were not tested for international usage (as the trouble remains concealed for English texts). In this case the bodily (often generated) content is in UTF-8; nonetheless, it is non configured in the HTML headers, so the rendering engine displays it with the default Western encoding.

Polish [edit]

Prior to the creation of ISO 8859-2 in 1987, users of various computing platforms used their ain character encodings such every bit AmigaPL on Amiga, Atari Club on Atari ST and Masovia, IBM CP852, Mazovia and Windows CP1250 on IBM PCs. Smoothen companies selling early on DOS computers created their own mutually-incompatible means to encode Polish characters and just 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 situation began to improve when, after pressure from bookish and user groups, ISO 8859-ii succeeded as the "Internet standard" with limited support of the dominant vendors' software (today largely replaced by Unicode). With the numerous problems caused by the variety of encodings, even today some users tend to refer to Polish diacritical characters as krzaczki ([kshach-kih], lit. "trivial 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 Russian Federation developed KOI encodings ( Kod Obmena Informatsiey , Код Обмена Информацией , which translates to "Code for Data Exchange"). This began with Cyrillic-only 7-scrap KOI7, based on ASCII but with Latin and another characters replaced with Cyrillic messages. Then came 8-bit KOI8 encoding that is an ASCII extension which encodes Cyrillic letters only with high-chip prepare octets corresponding to 7-scrap codes from KOI7. It is for this reason that KOI8 text, even Russian, remains partially readable afterward stripping the 8th bit, which was considered as a major advantage in the age of 8BITMIME-unaware email systems. For example, words " Школа русского языка " shkola russkogo yazyka , encoded in KOI8 and then passed through the loftier scrap stripping process, end upwardly rendered every bit "[KOLA RUSSKOGO qZYKA". Eventually KOI8 gained different flavors for Russian and Bulgarian (KOI8-R), Ukrainian (KOI8-U), Belarusian (KOI8-RU) and even Tajik (KOI8-T).

Meanwhile, in the Due west, Code folio 866 supported Ukrainian and Belarusian every bit well as Russian/Bulgarian in MS-DOS. For Microsoft Windows, Code 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 world's languages, including all Cyrillic characters.

Earlier Unicode, it was necessary to friction match text encoding with a font using the same encoding arrangement. Failure to exercise this produced unreadable gibberish whose specific appearance varied depending on the exact combination of text encoding and font encoding. For example, attempting to view non-Unicode Cyrillic text using a font that is limited 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 upper-case letter messages (KOI8 and codepage 1251 share the same ASCII region, but KOI8 has uppercase messages 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 World wide web, both KOI8 and codepage 1251 were common. As of 2017, i can yet encounter HTML pages in codepage 1251 and, rarely, KOI8 encodings, as well as Unicode. (An estimated 1.vii% of all web pages worldwide – all languages included – are encoded in codepage 1251.^[seven]) Though the HTML standard includes the ability to specify the encoding for whatsoever given spider web folio in its source,^[8] this is sometimes neglected, forcing the user to switch encodings in the browser manually.

In Bulgarian, mojibake is often chosen majmunica ( маймуница ), meaning "monkey's [alphabet]". In Serbian, it is called đubre ( ђубре ), meaning "trash". Unlike the one-time USSR, South Slavs never used something like KOI8, and Code Folio 1251 was the dominant Cyrillic encoding in that location earlier Unicode. Therefore, these languages experienced fewer encoding incompatibility troubles than Russian. In the 1980s, Bulgarian computers used their own MIK encoding, which is superficially similar to (although incompatible with) CP866.

Case

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

Yugoslav languages [edit]

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

Although Mojibake tin can occur with any of these characters, the letters that are not included in Windows-1252 are much more than prone to errors. Thus, even nowadays, "šđčćž ŠĐČĆŽ" is oftentimes displayed every bit "šðèæž ŠÐÈÆŽ", although ð, è, æ, È, Æ are never used in Slavic languages.

When bars to bones ASCII (nigh 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 instance). All of these replacements introduce ambiguities, and then reconstructing the original from such a class is usually done manually if required.

The Windows-1252 encoding is important because the English versions of the Windows operating system are virtually widespread, non localized ones.^{[ citation needed ]} The reasons for this include a relatively pocket-sized and fragmented market place, increasing the price of high quality localization, a high degree of software piracy (in turn caused by high cost of software compared to income), which discourages localization efforts, and people preferring English versions of Windows and other software.^{[ commendation needed ]}

The bulldoze to differentiate Croation from Serbian, Bosnian from Croatian and Serbian, and now even Montenegrin from the other iii creates many problems. There are many different localizations, using different standards and of different quality. There are no common translations for the vast amount of estimator terminology originating in English. In the end, 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 menu is supposed to do based on the translated phrase. Therefore, people who sympathise English, every bit well as those who are accustomed to English language terminology (who are virtually, because English terminology is likewise more often than not taught in schools because of these problems) regularly choose the original English versions of not-specialist software.

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

Newer versions of English Windows permit the code page to be changed (older versions require special English versions with this support), simply this setting tin be and often was incorrectly gear up. For example, Windows 98 and Windows Me can be set to nearly not-right-to-left single-byte code pages including 1250, simply only at install time.

Caucasian languages [edit]

The writing systems of sure languages of the Caucasus region, including the scripts of Georgian and Armenian, may produce mojibake. This problem is peculiarly acute in the instance of ArmSCII or ARMSCII, a gear up of obsolete graphic symbol encodings for the Armenian alphabet which have been superseded by Unicode standards. ArmSCII is not widely used because of a lack of back up in the figurer industry. For case, Microsoft Windows does not support it.

Asian encodings [edit]

Another blazon of mojibake occurs when text is erroneously parsed in a multi-byte encoding, such every bit one of the encodings for Due east Asian languages. With this kind of mojibake more than than one (typically two) characters are corrupted at one time, e.yard. "k舐lek" ( kärlek ) in Swedish, where " är " is parsed as "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 specially problematic for short words starting with å, ä or ö such as "än" (which becomes "舅"). Since ii letters are combined, the mojibake besides seems more random (over 50 variants compared to the normal three, non counting the rarer capitals). In some rare cases, an entire text string which happens to include a design of detail word lengths, such as the sentence "Bush-league hid the facts", may be misinterpreted.

Vietnamese [edit]

In Vietnamese, the phenomenon is chosen chữ ma , loạn mã can occur when computer try to encode diacritic graphic symbol defined in Windows-1258, TCVN3 or VNI to UTF-8. Chữ ma was common in Vietnam when user was using Windows XP reckoner or using inexpensive mobile phone.

Example:		Trăm năm trong cõi người ta (Truyện Kiều, Nguyễn Du)
Original encoding	Target encoding	Consequence
Windows-1258	UTF-8	Tră1000 northwardăgrand trong cõi người ta
TCVN3	UTF-8	Tr¨grand northward¨m trong câi ngêi ta
VNI (Windows)	UTF-8	Traêone thousand northaêm trong coõi ngöôøi ta

Japanese [edit]

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

Chinese [edit]

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

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

Original encoding	Viewed as	Result	Original text	Note
Big5	GB	?T瓣в变巨肚	三國志曹操傳	Garbled Chinese characters with no hint of original significant. The 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 equally characters with the radical 亻, while kanji are other characters. About of them are extremely uncommon and not in practical employ in modern 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. Easily identifiable considering of spaces between every several characters.

An additional problem is caused when encodings are missing characters, which is common with rare or blowsy characters that are yet 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 )'s "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.^[ix]

Newspapers have dealt with this problem in various ways, including using software to combine 2 existing, similar characters; using a motion-picture show of the personality; or simply substituting a homophone for the rare character in the promise that the reader would be able to make the correct inference.

Indic text [edit]

A similar effect 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 grapheme prepare employed is properly recognized by the application. This is because, in many Indic scripts, the rules by which individual letter of the alphabet symbols combine to create symbols for syllables may not be properly understood past a computer missing the appropriate software, fifty-fifty if the glyphs for the individual letter forms are bachelor.

One example of this is the old Wikipedia logo, which attempts to bear witness the graphic symbol analogous to "wi" (the first syllable of "Wikipedia") on each of many puzzle pieces. The puzzle piece meant to bear the Devanagari graphic symbol for "wi" instead used to display the "wa" graphic symbol followed past an unpaired "i" modifier vowel, easily recognizable as mojibake generated past a reckoner not configured to display Indic text.^[10] The logo equally redesigned every bit of May 2010^[ref] has fixed these errors.

The thought of Plain Text requires the operating organisation to provide a font to display Unicode codes. This font is different from OS to Bone for Singhala and information technology makes orthographically wrong glyphs for some messages (syllables) across all operating systems. For example, the 'reph', the short class for 'r' is a diacritic that normally goes on summit of a plain letter. However, it is wrong to go along top of some messages similar 'ya' or 'la' in specific contexts. For Sanskritic words or names inherited by modernistic languages, such every bit कार्य, IAST: kārya, or आर्या, IAST: āryā, information technology is apt to put it on top of these letters. By contrast, for like sounds in modern languages which result from their specific rules, it is not put on top, such every bit the word करणाऱ्या, IAST: karaṇāryā, a stem form of the mutual word करणारा/री, IAST: karaṇārā/rī, in the Marathi language.^[eleven] But information technology happens in about operating systems. This appears to be a fault of internal programming of the fonts. In Mac Os and iOS, the muurdhaja l (nighttime l) and 'u' combination and its long form both yield wrong shapes.^{[ citation needed ]}

Some Indic and Indic-derived scripts, most notably Lao, were not officially supported past Windows XP until the release of Vista.^[12] All the same, various sites have made free-to-download fonts.

Burmese [edit]

Due to Western sanctions^[thirteen] and the late arrival of Burmese language support in computers,^{[14] [fifteen]} much of the early on Burmese localization was homegrown without international cooperation. The prevailing means of Burmese support is via the Zawgyi font, a font that was created every bit a Unicode font but was in fact only partially Unicode compliant.^[15] In the Zawgyi font, some codepoints for Burmese script were implemented as specified in Unicode, but others were not.^[16] The Unicode Consortium refers to this as advert hoc font encodings.^[17] With the advent of mobile phones, mobile vendors such equally Samsung and Huawei simply replaced the Unicode compliant system fonts with Zawgyi versions.^[14]

Due to these ad hoc encodings, communications between users of Zawgyi and Unicode would render as garbled text. To get around this effect, content producers would make posts in both Zawgyi and Unicode.^[18] Myanmar government has designated 1 October 2019 as "U-Day" to officially switch to Unicode.^[thirteen] The full transition is estimated to have two years.^[19]

African languages [edit]

In sure writing systems of Africa, unencoded text is unreadable. Texts that may produce mojibake include those from the Horn of Africa such every bit 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 Commonwealth of the Congo, but these are non generally supported. Various other writing systems native to West Africa present like problems, such as the North'Ko alphabet, used for Manding languages in Guinea, and the Vai syllabary, used in Liberia.

Arabic [edit]

Another affected language is Arabic (meet beneath). The text becomes unreadable when the encodings do non match.

Examples [edit]

File encoding	Setting in browser	Outcome
Arabic instance:		(Universal Declaration of Man Rights)
Browser rendering:		الإعلان العالمى لحقوق الإنسان
UTF-8	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 8859-5	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-two	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 equally browser setting, because UTF-8 is easily recognisable, so if a browser supports UTF-8 it should recognise it automatically, and not try to translate something else equally UTF-8.

Run across also [edit]

• Lawmaking indicate
• Replacement grapheme
• Substitute graphic symbol
• Newline – The conventions for representing the line break differ between Windows and Unix systems. Though near software supports both conventions (which is trivial), software that must preserve or display the difference (due east.g. version control systems and information comparison tools) tin get substantially more difficult to use if not adhering to one convention.
• Byte social club mark – The most in-band mode to store the encoding together with the data – prepend it. This is by intention invisible to humans using compliant software, merely will by design be perceived as "garbage characters" to incompliant software (including many interpreters).
• HTML entities – An encoding of special characters in HTML, mostly optional, but required for sure characters to escape interpretation every bit markup.

  While failure to utilize this transformation is a vulnerability (see cross-site scripting), applying information technology too many times results in garbling of these characters. For instance, the quotation mark " becomes ", ", " and then on.

• Bush hid the facts

References [edit]

1. ^ ^{a b} King, Ritchie (2012). "Will unicode soon be the universal lawmaking? [The Data]". IEEE Spectrum. 49 (7): 60. doi:ten.1109/MSPEC.2012.6221090.
2. ^ WINDISCHMANN, Stephan (31 March 2004). "curl -v linux.ars (Internationalization)". Ars Technica . Retrieved 5 Oct 2018.
3. ^ "Guidelines for extended attributes". 2013-05-17. Retrieved 2015-02-15 .
4. ^ "Unicode mailinglist on the Eudora e-mail client". 2001-05-xiii. Retrieved 2014-11-01 .
5. ^ "sms-scam". June 18, 2014. Retrieved June 19, 2014.
6. ^ p. 141, Command + Alt + Delete: A Lexicon of Cyberslang, Jonathon Keats, Globe Pequot, 2007, ISBN one-59921-039-eight.
7. ^ "Usage of Windows-1251 for websites".
8. ^ "Declaring graphic symbol encodings in HTML".
9. ^ "PRC 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 information technology 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://marathi.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'due south digital world". The Japan Times. 27 September 2019. Retrieved 24 December 2019. Oct. one is "U-Twenty-four hour period", when Myanmar officially volition adopt the new arrangement.... Microsoft and Apple helped other countries standardize years ago, merely Western sanctions meant Myanmar lost out.
14. ^ ^{a b} Hotchkiss, Griffin (March 23, 2016). "Battle of the fonts". Borderland Myanmar . Retrieved 24 December 2019. With the release of Windows XP service pack 2, complex scripts were supported, which made it possible for Windows to return a Unicode-compliant Burmese font such as Myanmar1 (released in 2005). ... Myazedi, BIT, and afterward Zawgyi, circumscribed the rendering problem by adding extra code points that were reserved for Myanmar'southward ethnic languages. Not only does the re-mapping prevent future indigenous language support, information technology also results in a typing system that can be confusing and inefficient, even for experienced users. ... Huawei and Samsung, the ii well-nigh popular smartphone brands in Myanmar, are motivated only by capturing the largest market share, which means they support Zawgyi out of the box.
15. ^ ^{a b} Sin, Thant (7 September 2019). "Unified under one font organization as 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 Lawmaking: Zawgyi Project . Retrieved 31 Oct 2013.
17. ^ "Myanmar Scripts and Languages". Frequently Asked Questions. Unicode Consortium. Retrieved 24 December 2019. "UTF-viii" technically does not utilise to advertizing hoc font encodings such equally Zawgyi.
18. ^ LaGrow, Nick; Pruzan, Miri (September 26, 2019). "Integrating autoconversion: Facebook's path from Zawgyi to Unicode - Facebook Engineering". Facebook Engineering. Facebook. Retrieved 25 December 2019. Information technology makes advice on digital platforms hard, as content written in Unicode appears garbled to Zawgyi users and vice versa. ... In order to better reach their audiences, content producers in Myanmar often post in both Zawgyi and Unicode in a unmarried post, non to mention English or other languages.
19. ^ Saw Yi Nanda (21 Nov 2019). "Myanmar switch to Unicode to accept two years: app developer". The Myanmar Times . Retrieved 24 December 2019.

External links [edit]

bivensboreak.blogspot.com

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

Share this post