Ùâã™å Ù„ã™â€¦ 17 Again Ù…ã˜âªã˜â±ã˜â¬ã™â€¦ Øâ§ã™ë†ã™â€ Ù„ã˜â§ã™å Ùâ€

Garbled text as a result of incorrect grapheme encoding

Mojibake ( 文字化け ; IPA: [mod͡ʑibake]) is the garbled text that is the consequence of text existence decoded using an unintended grapheme encoding.^[1] The result is a systematic replacement of symbols with completely unrelated ones, frequently from a unlike writing system.

This display may include the generic replacement character ("�") in places where the binary representation is considered invalid. A replacement tin can as well involve multiple sequent symbols, as viewed in one encoding, when the same binary code constitutes ane symbol in the other encoding. This is either because of differing constant length encoding (as in Asian 16-scrap 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 unlike issue that is non 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 correct mistake handling by the software.

Etymology [edit]

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

Causes [edit]

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

Mojibake is oft seen with text information that have been tagged with a wrong encoding; it may not fifty-fifty be tagged at all, but moved between computers with different default encodings. A major source of problem are communication protocols that rely on settings on each estimator 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 arrangement families, and partly the legacy encodings' specializations for different writing systems of man languages. Whereas Linux distributions more often than not switched to UTF-8 in 2004,^[2] Microsoft Windows generally uses UTF-xvi, and sometimes uses 8-fleck lawmaking pages for text files in different languages.^{[ dubious – discuss ]}

For some writing systems, an example being Japanese, several encodings have historically been employed, causing users to see mojibake relatively ofttimes. As a Japanese example, the give-and-take 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 same text stored equally UTF-8 is displayed equally "譁�蟄怜喧縺�" if interpreted as Shift JIS. This is further exacerbated if other locales are involved: the same UTF-viii text appears as "文字化ã'" in software that assumes text to be in the Windows-1252 or ISO-8859-one encodings, usually labelled Western, or (for instance) as "鏂囧瓧鍖栥亼" if interpreted equally being in a GBK (Mainland Mainland 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 as Shift-JIS encoding	ﾊ	ｸ	ｻ	郾		ｽ	､	ｱ
Bytes interpreted as ISO-8859-ane encoding	Ê	¸	»	ú	²	½	¤	±
Bytes interpreted as GBK encoding	矢		机		步		け

Underspecification [edit]

If the encoding is not specified, it is upwards to the software to decide information technology past 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 non-so-uncommon scenarios.

The encoding of text files is afflicted past locale setting, which depends on the user'south language, brand of operating organization and possibly other atmospheric condition. Therefore, the assumed encoding is systematically wrong for files that come up from a computer with a dissimilar setting, or even from a differently localized software within the same system. For Unicode, 1 solution is to use a byte lodge mark, but for source code and other machine readable text, many parsers don't tolerate this. Another is storing the encoding as metadata in the file system. File systems that support extended file attributes can shop this as user.charset.^[3] This also requires support in software that wants to accept reward of information technology, just does not disturb other software.

While a few encodings are piece of cake to discover, 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 another in Shift-JIS if the coding scheme is not assigned explicitly using HTTP headers sent along 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 also occurs when the encoding is wrongly specified. This often happens between encodings that are similar. For example, the Eudora e-mail customer for Windows was known to ship emails labelled every bit ISO-8859-1 that were in reality Windows-1252.^[four] The Mac OS version of Eudora did non showroom this behaviour. Windows-1252 contains extra printable characters in the C1 range (the most frequently seen beingness curved quotation marks and extra dashes), that were not displayed properly in software complying with the ISO standard; this specially affected software running under other operating systems such as Unix.

Human ignorance [edit]

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

• Compatibility can be a deceptive property, as the mutual subset of characters is unaffected by a mixup of ii encodings (encounter Bug in different writing systems).
• People recall they are using ASCII, and tend to label whatever superset of ASCII they really use equally "ASCII". Maybe for simplification, just even in academic literature, the give-and-take "ASCII" can exist found used as an instance of something not compatible with Unicode, where evidently "ASCII" is Windows-1252 and "Unicode" is UTF-8.^[1] Note that UTF-eight 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 certain information may be misleading to the recipient. For example, consider a web server serving a static HTML file over HTTP. The character set may be communicated to the client in any number of three ways:

• in the HTTP header. This information tin be based on server configuration (for instance, when serving a file off deejay) or controlled by the awarding running on the server (for dynamic websites).
• in the file, as 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 particular file in.
• in the file, equally a byte gild mark. This is the encoding that the author's editor actually saved it in. Unless an accidental encoding conversion has happened (by opening it in one encoding and saving it in some other), this volition be correct. It is, still, only available in Unicode encodings such equally UTF-8 or UTF-16.

Lack of hardware or software back up [edit]

Much older hardware is typically designed to back up only ane grapheme set and the character gear up typically cannot exist contradistinct. The graphic symbol table contained within the display firmware volition be localized to take characters for the country the device is to be sold in, and typically the tabular array differs from country to state. As such, these systems will potentially display mojibake when loading text generated on a organization from a unlike country. As well, many early on operating systems exercise not back up multiple encoding formats and thus will terminate up displaying mojibake if made to brandish not-standard text—early versions of Microsoft Windows and Palm Os for example, are localized on a per-country footing and volition 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 different encoding format from the version that the Os is designed to back up is opened.

Resolutions [edit]

Applications using UTF-viii as a default encoding may achieve a greater degree of interoperability because of its widespread utilize and backward compatibility with U.s.a.-ASCII. UTF-eight also has the ability to be directly recognised by a simple algorithm, so that well written software should be able to avoid mixing UTF-8 up with other encodings.

The difficulty of resolving an case of mojibake varies depending on the awarding within which it occurs and the causes of it. 2 of the almost mutual applications in which mojibake may occur are web browsers and word processors. Modern browsers and give-and-take processors often 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 allow the user to select the appropriate encoding when opening a file. It may take some trial and fault for users to detect the right encoding.

The trouble gets more than complicated when information technology occurs in an application that unremarkably does not back up a broad range of character encoding, such as in a not-Unicode reckoner game. In this case, the user must alter the operating arrangement'due south encoding settings to friction match that of the game. Even so, changing the organisation-broad encoding settings can likewise crusade Mojibake in pre-existing applications. In Windows XP or later on, a user also has the option to use Microsoft AppLocale, an application that allows the changing of per-application locale settings. Still, changing the operating system encoding settings is not possible on before operating systems such every bit Windows 98; to resolve this result on earlier operating systems, a user would have to use tertiary party font rendering applications.

Bug in unlike writing systems [edit]

English language [edit]

Mojibake in English texts generally occurs in punctuation, such as em dashes (—), en dashes (–), and curly quotes (",",','), but rarely in character text, since most encodings agree with ASCII on the encoding of the English alphabet. For case, the pound sign "£" volition appear every bit "£" if it was encoded past the sender every bit UTF-8 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 acquired mismatch also for English text. Commodore make 8-bit computers used PETSCII encoding, especially notable for inverting the upper and lower case compared to standard ASCII. PETSCII printers worked fine on other computers of the era, just flipped the case of all messages. IBM mainframes employ the EBCDIC encoding which does not 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 boosted characters are typically the ones that become corrupted, making texts but 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 Faeroese
• 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 upper-case letter counterparts, if applicable.

These are languages for which the ISO-8859-1 character prepare (also known as Latin ane or Western) has been in use. However, ISO-8859-one has been obsoleted by ii competing standards, the backward compatible Windows-1252, and the slightly contradistinct ISO-8859-15. Both add together 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 e'er condom to interpret ISO-8859-1 as Windows-1252, and adequately safety to interpret it as ISO-8859-15, in detail with respect to the Euro sign, which replaces the rarely used currency sign (¤). Even so, with the advent of UTF-8, mojibake has go more mutual in certain scenarios, e.grand. exchange of text files betwixt UNIX and Windows computers, due to UTF-8's incompatibility with Latin-1 and Windows-1252. Simply UTF-eight has the ability to exist directly recognised by a simple algorithm, so that well written software should be able to avoid mixing UTF-8 up with other encodings, so this was most common when many had software not supporting UTF-8. Most of these languages were supported past MS-DOS default CP437 and other machine default encodings, except ASCII, and then bug when buying an operating organisation version were less common. Windows and MS-DOS are not compatible however.

In Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and German language, vowels are rarely repeated, and information technology is usually obvious when 1 graphic symbol gets corrupted, eastward.grand. the 2nd letter in "kÃ⁠¤rlek" ( kärlek , "love"). This style, even though the reader has to guess between å, ä and ö, almost all texts remain legible. Finnish text, on the other hand, does feature repeating vowels in words similar hääyö ("wedding night") which can sometimes render text very hard to read (due east.g. hääyö appears equally "hÃ⁠¤Ã⁠¤yÃ⁠¶"). Icelandic and Faeroese have ten and 8 possibly confounding characters, respectively, which thus can go far more than difficult to estimate corrupted characters; Icelandic words like þjóðlöð ("outstanding hospitality") become nigh entirely unintelligible when rendered as "þjóðlöð".

In High german, Buchstabensalat ("letter salad") is a mutual term for this phenomenon, and in Spanish, deformación (literally deformation).

Some users transliterate their writing when using a computer, either past 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 practice in German language when umlauts are not available. The latter do seems to exist amend tolerated in the German language sphere than in the Nordic countries. For case, in Norwegian, digraphs are associated with primitive Danish, and may be used jokingly. However, digraphs are useful in advice with other parts of the earth. As an case, the Norwegian football player Ole Gunnar Solskjær had his name spelled "SOLSKJAER" on his back when he played for Manchester United.

An artifact of UTF-8 misinterpreted as ISO-8859-1, "Band meg nÃ¥" (" Ring 1000000 nå "), was seen in an SMS scam raging in Norway in June 2014.^[5]

Examples

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

Central and Eastern European [edit]

Users of Cardinal and Eastern European languages can also be afflicted. Because most computers were not connected to any network during the mid- to late-1980s, in that location were different graphic symbol encodings for every language with diacritical characters (see ISO/IEC 8859 and KOI-viii), often too 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 present in the Latin-1 character ready), plus the ii characters ő and ű, which are not in Latin-1. These 2 characters can be correctly encoded in Latin-two, Windows-1250 and Unicode. Before Unicode became common in e-mail clients, e-mails containing Hungarian text often had the letters ő and ű corrupted, sometimes to the point of unrecognizability. Information technology is mutual to respond to an due east-mail service rendered unreadable (come across examples below) by graphic symbol mangling (referred to as "betűszemét", pregnant "letter of the alphabet garbage") with the phrase "Árvíztűrő tükörfúrógép", a nonsense phrase (literally "Flood-resistant mirror-drilling auto") containing all absolute characters used in Hungarian.

Examples [edit]

Source encoding	Target encoding	Upshot	Occurrence
Hungarian example		ÁRVÍZTŰRŐ TÜKÖRFÚRÓGÉP árvíztűrő tükörfúrógép	Characters in ruby-red are incorrect and practise not match the superlative-left example.
CP 852	CP 437	╡RV╓ZTδRè TÜKÖRFΘRαGÉP árvízt√rï tükörfúrógép	This was very mutual in DOS-era when the text was encoded by the Cardinal European CP 852 encoding; however, the operating system, a software or printer used the default CP 437 encoding. Please note that small-case messages are mainly correct, exception with ő (ï) and ű (√). Ü/ü is correct because CP 852 was made uniform with High german. Nowadays occurs mainly on printed prescriptions and cheques.
CWI-2	CP 437	ÅRVìZTÿRº TÜKÖRFùRòGÉP árvíztûrô tükörfúrógép	The CWI-ii encoding was designed and so 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 on 1990s, merely nowadays it is completely deprecated.
Windows-1250	Windows-1252	ÁRVÍZTÛRÕ TÜKÖRFÚRÓGÉP árvíztûrõ tükörfúrógép	The default Western Windows encoding is used instead of the Central-European one. Simply ő-Ő (õ-Õ) and ű-Ű (û-Û) are wrong, but the text is completely readable. This is the most common error nowadays; due to ignorance, it occurs oft on webpages or even in printed media.
CP 852	Windows-1250	µRVÖZTëRŠ TšThou™RFéRŕG P rvˇztűr‹ t g"rfŁr˘yard‚p	Primal European Windows encoding is used instead of DOS encoding. The use of ű is right.
Windows-1250	CP 852	┴RV═ZT█RŇ T▄KÍRF┌RËChiliad╔P ßrvÝztűr§ tŘg÷rf˙rˇgÚp	Cardinal European DOS encoding is used instead of Windows encoding. The use of ű is right.
Quoted-printable	7-fleck ASCII	=C1RV=CDZT=DBR=D5 T=DCK=D6RF=DAR=D3G=C9P =E1rv=EDzt=FBr=F5 t=FCthousand=F6rf=FAr=F3g=E9p	Mainly caused by wrongly configured mail servers but may occur in SMS messages on some cell-phones every bit well.
UTF-8	Windows-1252	ÁRVÍZTÅ°RŐ TÃœKÖRFÚRÃ"GrandÉP árvÃztűrÅ' tükörfúró1000ép	Mainly caused by wrongly configured web services or webmail clients, which were not tested for international usage (as the trouble remains curtained for English texts). In this instance the actual (frequently generated) content is in UTF-8; still, information technology is not configured in the HTML headers, so the rendering engine displays information technology with the default Western encoding.

Polish [edit]

Prior to the creation of ISO 8859-2 in 1987, users of diverse computing platforms used their own grapheme encodings such equally AmigaPL on Amiga, Atari Club on Atari ST and Masovia, IBM CP852, Mazovia and Windows CP1250 on IBM PCs. Polish companies selling early DOS computers created their own mutually-incompatible means 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 computer sellers had placed them.

The situation began to amend when, afterwards pressure from academic and user groups, ISO 8859-2 succeeded as the "Cyberspace standard" with limited support of the dominant vendors' software (today largely replaced by Unicode). With the numerous issues caused by the diversity of encodings, even today some users tend to refer to Polish diacritical characters every bit krzaczki ([kshach-kih], lit. "little 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 Russia adult KOI encodings ( Kod Obmena Informatsiey , Код Обмена Информацией , which translates to "Code for Information Exchange"). This began with Cyrillic-only 7-bit KOI7, based on ASCII just with Latin and some other characters replaced with Cyrillic letters. So came viii-scrap KOI8 encoding that is an ASCII extension which encodes Cyrillic letters only with high-bit set octets respective to 7-bit codes from KOI7. It is for this reason that KOI8 text, even Russian, remains partially readable after stripping the 8th scrap, 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 and so passed through the high bit stripping process, end upwards rendered every bit "[KOLA RUSSKOGO qZYKA". Eventually KOI8 gained different flavors for Russian and Bulgarian (KOI8-R), Ukrainian (KOI8-U), Belorussian (KOI8-RU) and fifty-fifty Tajik (KOI8-T).

Meanwhile, in the West, Code folio 866 supported Ukrainian and Belarusian likewise as Russian/Bulgarian in MS-DOS. For Microsoft Windows, Code Page 1251 added back up for Serbian and other Slavic variants of Cyrillic.

Most recently, the Unicode encoding includes lawmaking points for practically all the characters of all the world's languages, including all Cyrillic characters.

Before Unicode, it was necessary to match text encoding with a font using the same encoding arrangement. Failure to do this produced unreadable gibberish whose specific appearance 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 near 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, merely KOI8 has uppercase messages in the region where codepage 1251 has lowercase, and vice versa). In full 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, one tin yet encounter HTML pages in codepage 1251 and, rarely, KOI8 encodings, likewise as Unicode. (An estimated i.7% 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 whatsoever given 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 called majmunica ( маймуница ), significant "monkey'south [alphabet]". In Serbian, information technology is called đubre ( ђубре ), significant "trash". Unlike the erstwhile USSR, South Slavs never used something like KOI8, and Lawmaking Folio 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 own MIK encoding, which is superficially similar to (although incompatible with) CP866.

Example

Russian case:		Кракозябры ( krakozyabry , garbage characters)
File encoding	Setting in browser	Upshot
MS-DOS 855	ISO 8859-1	Æá ÆÖóÞ¢áñ
KOI8-R	ISO 8859-1	ëÒÁËÏÚÑÂÒÙ
UTF-eight	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 bones Latin alphabet the letters 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, every bit 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 in that location because of another languages.

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

When confined to bones ASCII (virtually user names, for example), common replacements are: š→due south, đ→dj, č→c, ć→c, ž→z (upper-case letter forms analogously, with Đ→Dj or Đ→DJ depending on word case). All of these replacements introduce ambiguities, so reconstructing the original from such a class is commonly done manually if required.

The Windows-1252 encoding is important because the English versions of the Windows operating system are most widespread, non localized ones.^{[ citation needed ]} The reasons for this include a relatively pocket-size and fragmented market, increasing the price of high quality localization, a high degree of software piracy (in turn caused by loftier price 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 Croatian from Serbian, Bosnian from Croatian and Serbian, and now even Montenegrin from the other three creates many problems. There are many unlike localizations, using different standards and of different quality. There are no common translations for the vast amount of reckoner terminology originating in English. In the end, people use adopted English words ("kompjuter" for "computer", "kompajlirati" for "compile," etc.), and if they are unaccustomed to the translated terms may not understand what some selection in a menu is supposed to practise based on the translated phrase. Therefore, people who empathise English, too equally those who are accustomed to English terminology (who are most, because English terminology is also mostly taught in schools because of these problems) regularly cull the original English versions of not-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 allow the code page to be changed (older versions require special English versions with this support), simply this setting can be and often was incorrectly set. For example, Windows 98 and Windows Me can be gear up to most non-right-to-left unmarried-byte code pages including 1250, but just 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 problem is particularly acute in the case of ArmSCII or ARMSCII, a prepare of obsolete character encodings for the Armenian alphabet which have been superseded past Unicode standards. ArmSCII is non widely used because of a lack of support in the calculator industry. For example, Microsoft Windows does not support it.

Asian encodings [edit]

Some other blazon of mojibake occurs when text is erroneously parsed in a multi-byte encoding, such equally one of the encodings for East Asian languages. With this kind of mojibake more than than one (typically ii) characters are corrupted at one time, e.thousand. "k舐lek" ( kärlek ) in Swedish, where " är " is parsed as "舐". Compared to the to a higher place 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 every bit "än" (which becomes "舅"). Since 2 messages are combined, the mojibake too seems more than random (over 50 variants compared to the normal three, not counting the rarer capitals). In some rare cases, an entire text string which happens to include a pattern of particular word lengths, such equally the sentence "Bush hid the facts", may be misinterpreted.

Vietnamese [edit]

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

Vietnamese case:		Trăm năm trong cõi người ta (Truyện Kiều, Nguyễn Du)
Original encoding	Target encoding	Effect
Windows-1258	UTF-eight	Trăg năk trong cõi người ta
TCVN3	UTF-8	Tr¨grand n¨thousand trong câi ng­êi ta
VNI (Windows)	UTF-8	Traêm naêg trong coõi ngöôøi ta

Japanese [edit]

In Japanese, the aforementioned phenomenon is, every bit mentioned, called mojibake ( 文字化け ). It is a detail problem in Japan due to the numerous unlike encodings that exist for Japanese text. Alongside Unicode encodings like UTF-viii and UTF-16, in that location are other standard encodings, such as Shift-JIS (Windows machines) and EUC-JP (UNIX systems). Mojibake, every bit well as existence encountered by Japanese users, is also oftentimes encountered by non-Japanese when attempting to run software written for the Japanese market.

Chinese [edit]

In Chinese, the same phenomenon is called Luàn mǎ (Pinyin, Simplified Chinese 乱码 , Traditional Chinese 亂碼 , pregnant 'chaotic lawmaking'), and can occur when computerised text is encoded in one Chinese character 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 state of affairs is complicated because of the existence of several Chinese character encoding systems in use, the almost mutual ones existence: Unicode, Big5, and Guobiao (with several backward compatible versions), and the possibility of Chinese characters existence encoded using Japanese encoding.

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

Original encoding	Viewed as	Outcome	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 meaning. 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 every bit characters with the radical 亻, while kanji are other characters. Most of them are extremely uncommon and not in practical use 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 mutual with rare or antiquated characters that are however 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-Communist china Premier Zhu Rongji (Chinese: 朱镕基; pinyin: Zhū Róngjī )'southward "镕" missing in GB2312, copyright symbol "©" missing in GBK.^[ix]

Newspapers accept dealt with this problem in diverse ways, including using software to combine ii existing, like characters; using a motion-picture show of the personality; or simply substituting a homophone for the rare grapheme in the hope that the reader would exist able to make the right 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, Panjabi, Marathi, and others, even if the character set employed is properly recognized by the awarding. This is considering, in many Indic scripts, the rules by which individual letter symbols combine to create symbols for syllables may not be properly understood by a calculator missing the appropriate software, fifty-fifty if the glyphs for the private letter forms are available.

One case of this is the old Wikipedia logo, which attempts to show the character analogous to "wi" (the first syllable of "Wikipedia") on each of many puzzle pieces. The puzzle piece meant to carry the Devanagari character for "wi" instead used to display the "wa" character followed by an unpaired "i" modifier vowel, easily recognizable as mojibake generated past a computer not configured to brandish Indic text.^[10] The logo as redesigned as of May 2010^[ref] has fixed these errors.

The thought of Patently Text requires the operating system to provide a font to brandish Unicode codes. This font is different from Bone to Bone for Singhala and it makes orthographically incorrect glyphs for some letters (syllables) across all operating systems. For instance, the 'reph', the short form for 'r' is a diacritic that normally goes on top of a plain alphabetic character. Nevertheless, it is wrong to go along top of some letters like 'ya' or 'la' in specific contexts. For Sanskritic words or names inherited by modern languages, such as कार्य, IAST: kārya, or आर्या, IAST: āryā, it is apt to put information technology on top of these letters. Past contrast, for like sounds in modernistic languages which result from their specific rules, it is not put on top, such as the word करणाऱ्या, IAST: karaṇāryā, a stem grade of the common word करणारा/री, IAST: karaṇārā/rī, in the Marāthi linguistic communication.^[11] But it happens in nigh operating systems. This appears to exist a fault of internal programming of the fonts. In Mac OS 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, most notably Lao, were not officially supported by Windows XP until the release of Vista.^[12] However, diverse sites have made gratuitous-to-download fonts.

Burmese [edit]

Due to Western sanctions^[13] and the late inflow of Burmese linguistic communication support in computers,^{[fourteen] [15]} much of the early Burmese localization was homegrown without international cooperation. The prevailing means of Burmese back up is via the Zawgyi font, a font that was created as 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 ad hoc font encodings.^[17] With the advent of mobile phones, mobile vendors such as Samsung and Huawei merely replaced the Unicode compliant organisation fonts with Zawgyi versions.^[fourteen]

Due to these ad hoc encodings, communications between users of Zawgyi and Unicode would return as garbled text. To get around this event, content producers would make posts in both Zawgyi and Unicode.^[18] Myanmar government has designated i October 2019 as "U-Solar day" to officially switch to Unicode.^[13] The full transition is estimated to take 2 years.^[nineteen]

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 language, which employs the Osmanya alphabet. In Southern Africa, the Mwangwego alphabet is used to write languages of Republic of malaŵi and the Mandombe alphabet was created for the Congo-kinshasa, but these are not generally supported. Diverse other writing systems native to West Africa present similar problems, such as the North'Ko alphabet, used for Manding languages in Guinea, and the Vai syllabary, used in Liberia.

Arabic [edit]

Another afflicted language is Standard arabic (see below). The text becomes unreadable when the encodings practice not lucifer.

Examples [edit]

File encoding	Setting in browser	Result
Arabic example:		(Universal Declaration of Human 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-half-dozen	ُ؛؟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-ii	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 exercise not have UTF-8 as browser setting, considering UTF-8 is easily recognisable, and so if a browser supports UTF-8 it should recognise it automatically, and not endeavour to translate something else as UTF-viii.

See as well [edit]

• Code indicate
• Replacement character
• Substitute character
• Newline – The conventions for representing the line break differ between Windows and Unix systems. Though nearly software supports both conventions (which is trivial), software that must preserve or display the departure (east.g. version control systems and data comparison tools) tin can get essentially more hard to use if not adhering to one convention.
• Byte lodge mark – The about in-band way to store the encoding together with the data – prepend information technology. This is by intention invisible to humans using compliant software, but volition past design be perceived as "garbage characters" to incompliant software (including many interpreters).
• HTML entities – An encoding of special characters in HTML, mostly optional, only required for certain characters to escape interpretation as markup.

  While failure to apply this transformation is a vulnerability (run into cantankerous-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). "Volition unicode soon exist the universal code? [The Information]". IEEE Spectrum. 49 (7): 60. doi:x.1109/MSPEC.2012.6221090.
2. ^ WINDISCHMANN, Stephan (31 March 2004). "curl -5 linux.ars (Internationalization)". Ars Technica . Retrieved 5 October 2018.
3. ^ "Guidelines for extended attributes". 2013-05-17. Retrieved 2015-02-fifteen .
4. ^ "Unicode mailinglist on the Eudora electronic mail client". 2001-05-13. Retrieved 2014-11-01 .
5. ^ "sms-scam". June 18, 2014. Retrieved June 19, 2014.
6. ^ p. 141, Control + Alt + Delete: A Dictionary of Cyberslang, Jonathon Keats, Globe Pequot, 2007, ISBN 1-59921-039-viii.
7. ^ "Usage of Windows-1251 for websites".
8. ^ "Declaring character encodings in HTML".
9. ^ "Communist china GBK (XGB)". Microsoft. Archived from the original on 2002-10-01. Conversion map betwixt Code folio 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'due south 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's digital globe". The Japan Times. 27 September 2019. Retrieved 24 Dec 2019. Oct. 1 is "U-Day", when Myanmar officially will adopt the new organisation.... Microsoft and Apple helped other countries standardize years ago, but Western sanctions meant Myanmar lost out.
14. ^ ^{a b} Hotchkiss, Griffin (March 23, 2016). "Battle of the fonts". Frontier Myanmar . Retrieved 24 Dec 2019. With the release of Windows XP service pack ii, 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 afterwards Zawgyi, circumscribed the rendering problem by calculation extra code points that were reserved for Myanmar's ethnic languages. Not only does the re-mapping forestall future ethnic language support, it also results in a typing system that can be confusing and inefficient, even for experienced users. ... Huawei and Samsung, the two about 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 system as Myanmar prepares to drift from Zawgyi to Unicode". Rise Voices . Retrieved 24 Dec 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. 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 order to better reach their audiences, content producers in Myanmar often post in both Zawgyi and Unicode in a single post, non to mention English or other languages.
19. ^ Saw Yi Nanda (21 November 2019). "Myanmar switch to Unicode to take ii years: app programmer". The Myanmar Times . Retrieved 24 December 2019.

External links [edit]

hannamwileve1972.blogspot.com

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

Share this post