Man Again Time Esoteric Truths Man Again Time Esoteric Truths Ñâãâºãâ°ã‘‡ãâ°ã‘‚ã‘å’

Garbled text as a outcome of incorrect character encoding

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

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

Failed rendering of glyphs due to either missing fonts or missing glyphs in a font is a unlike result that is not to be dislocated with mojibake. Symptoms of this failed rendering include blocks with the code signal displayed in hexadecimal or using the generic replacement grapheme. Importantly, these replacements are valid and are the result of correct fault handling by the software.

Etymology [edit]

Mojibake means "graphic symbol transformation" in Japanese. The word is equanimous 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 betwixt the encoded information and the notion of its encoding must exist preserved. As mojibake is the instance of non-compliance betwixt these, it can be achieved by manipulating the data itself, or just relabeling information technology.

Mojibake is often seen with text data that have been tagged with a wrong encoding; information technology may non 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 data.

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

For some writing systems, an example existence Japanese, several encodings have historically been employed, causing users to encounter mojibake relatively often. As a Japanese example, the word mojibake "文字化け" stored every bit EUC-JP might be 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 as UTF-8 is displayed as "譁�蟄怜喧縺�" if interpreted as Shift JIS. This is further exacerbated if other locales are involved: the aforementioned UTF-viii 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 (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-8859-1 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 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'due south language, brand of operating arrangement and mayhap other conditions. Therefore, the assumed encoding is systematically incorrect for files that come up from a computer with a different setting, or fifty-fifty from a differently localized software inside the same system. For Unicode, one solution is to use a byte society mark, simply for source lawmaking and other machine readable text, many parsers don't tolerate this. Another is storing the encoding every bit metadata in the file system. File systems that support extended file attributes can store this as user.charset.^[three] This also requires support in software that wants to take advantage of it, simply does non disturb other software.

While a few encodings are like shooting fish in a barrel to detect, in item UTF-8, there are many that are difficult to distinguish (see charset detection). A web browser may non be able to distinguish a folio 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 certificate's meta tags that are used to substitute for missing HTTP headers if the server cannot be 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 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 non 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 afflicted software running nether other operating systems such equally Unix.

Homo ignorance [edit]

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

• Compatibility tin can exist a deceptive property, every bit the common subset of characters is unaffected by a mixup of ii encodings (run across Bug in different writing systems).
• People call up they are using ASCII, and tend to characterization whatever superset of ASCII they really use as "ASCII". Maybe for simplification, merely even in academic literature, the discussion "ASCII" can exist plant used as an example of something not compatible with Unicode, where plain "ASCII" is Windows-1252 and "Unicode" is UTF-eight.^[1] Note that UTF-8 is backwards compatible with ASCII.

Overspecification [edit]

When at that place are layers of protocols, each trying to specify the encoding based on different information, the to the lowest degree certain information may exist 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 three ways:

• in the HTTP header. This information can be based on server configuration (for example, when serving a file off disk) or controlled by the application running on the server (for dynamic websites).
• in the file, every bit an HTML meta tag (http-equiv or charset) or the encoding aspect of an XML announcement. This is the encoding that the writer meant to relieve the item file in.
• in the file, as a byte order mark. This is the encoding that the author'southward editor really saved it in. Unless an accidental encoding conversion has happened (past opening it in one encoding and saving it in another), this will exist right. It is, however, only 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 back up only 1 character set and the character prepare typically cannot be altered. The character table contained within the display firmware will exist localized to have characters for the country the device is to exist sold in, and typically the table differs from state to country. Every bit such, these systems will potentially brandish mojibake when loading text generated on a system from a different land. Likewise, many early operating systems practice not support multiple encoding formats and thus will finish up displaying mojibake if made to display non-standard text—early versions of Microsoft Windows and Palm Bone for example, are localized on a per-country basis 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 unlike encoding format from the version that the OS is designed to support is opened.

Resolutions [edit]

Applications using UTF-8 as a default encoding may achieve a greater caste of interoperability considering of its widespread apply and backward compatibility with US-ASCII. UTF-eight as well has the power to be direct recognised by a simple algorithm, then that well written software should be able to avert mixing UTF-viii up with other encodings.

The difficulty of resolving an instance of mojibake varies depending on the application within which it occurs and the causes of information technology. Two of the most common applications in which mojibake may occur are web browsers and discussion processors. Modern browsers and discussion processors oftentimes support a wide array of character encodings. Browsers ofttimes allow a user to alter 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 information technology occurs in an awarding that normally does not support a broad range of character encoding, such equally in a non-Unicode computer game. In this example, the user must modify the operating system's encoding settings to match that of the game. However, irresolute the organization-broad encoding settings can also cause Mojibake in pre-existing applications. In Windows XP or after, a user also has the option to use Microsoft AppLocale, an application that allows the irresolute of per-awarding locale settings. Even and then, irresolute the operating system encoding settings is not possible on before operating systems such as Windows 98; to resolve this consequence on earlier operating systems, a user would have to apply third party font rendering applications.

Bug in unlike writing systems [edit]

English [edit]

Mojibake in English language texts generally occurs in punctuation, such equally em dashes (—), en dashes (–), and curly quotes (",",','), merely rarely in grapheme text, since most encodings agree with ASCII on the encoding of the English alphabet. For instance, the pound sign "£" will announced as "£" if it was encoded by the sender as UTF-8 simply 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 too for English language text. Commodore brand viii-flake 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 messages. IBM mainframes utilize the EBCDIC encoding which does not lucifer 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 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 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
• 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-one graphic symbol prepare (also known as Latin i or Western) has been in use. However, ISO-8859-1 has been obsoleted by two competing standards, the backward compatible Windows-1252, and the slightly altered ISO-8859-xv. Both add the Euro sign € and the French œ, but otherwise whatsoever confusion of these iii character sets does not create mojibake in these languages. Furthermore, it is always prophylactic to interpret ISO-8859-i as Windows-1252, and adequately prophylactic to interpret it as ISO-8859-15, in particular with respect to the Euro sign, which replaces the rarely used currency sign (¤). However, with the advent of UTF-viii, mojibake has get more than mutual in sure scenarios, e.1000. commutation of text files between UNIX and Windows computers, due to UTF-8's incompatibility with Latin-1 and Windows-1252. Simply UTF-8 has the ability to be direct recognised by a unproblematic algorithm, so that well written software should be able to avert mixing UTF-8 upwardly with other encodings, so this was virtually common when many had software not supporting UTF-viii. Most of these languages were supported by MS-DOS default CP437 and other machine default encodings, except ASCII, so bug when ownership 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 it is usually obvious when 1 character gets corrupted, east.g. the second letter of the alphabet in "kÃ⁠¤rlek" ( kärlek , "love"). This way, even though the reader has to gauge between å, ä and ö, almost all texts remain legible. Finnish text, on the other mitt, does feature repeating vowels in words like hääyö ("wedding dark") which can sometimes return text very hard to read (e.g. hääyö appears equally "hÃ⁠¤Ã⁠¤yÃ⁠¶"). Icelandic and Faroese take ten and eight possibly confounding characters, respectively, which thus tin make it more than difficult to guess corrupted characters; Icelandic words similar þjóðlöð ("outstanding hospitality") become almost entirely unintelligible when rendered every bit "þjóðlöð".

In 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 past 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 do in German language when umlauts are non available. The latter practice seems to be better tolerated in the German language language sphere than in the Nordic countries. For example, in Norwegian, digraphs are associated with archaic Danish, and may be used jokingly. Still, digraphs are useful in communication with other parts of the world. As an example, the Norwegian football histrion Ole Gunnar Solskjær had his proper noun spelled "SOLSKJAER" on his dorsum when he played for Manchester United.

An artifact of UTF-8 misinterpreted as ISO-8859-1, "Ring meg nÃ¥" (" Ring one thousand thousand 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 8859-1	Sm"rg†s
ISO 8859-1	Mac Roman	SmˆrgÂs
UTF-eight	ISO 8859-1	Smörgås
UTF-8	Mac Roman	Smörgås

Key and Eastern European [edit]

Users of Key and Eastern European languages can also exist affected. Because most computers were not connected to whatsoever network during the mid- to belatedly-1980s, in that location were different graphic symbol encodings for every language with diacritical characters (see ISO/IEC 8859 and KOI-eight), often also varying past operating system.

Hungarian [edit]

Hungarian is another affected language, which uses the 26 basic English characters, plus the accented forms á, é, í, ó, ú, ö, ü (all nowadays in the Latin-ane character fix), plus the two characters ő and ű, which are non in Latin-1. These two characters can be correctly encoded in Latin-2, Windows-1250 and Unicode. Before Unicode became common in electronic 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 eastward-post rendered unreadable (see examples below) by character mangling (referred to every bit "betűszemét", meaning "letter garbage") with the phrase "Árvíztűrő tükörfúrógép", a nonsense phrase (literally "Flood-resistant mirror-drilling motorcar") containing all accented characters used in Hungarian.

Examples [edit]

Source encoding	Target encoding	Result	Occurrence
Hungarian example		ÁRVÍZTŰRŐ TÜKÖRFÚRÓGÉP árvíztűrő tükörfúrógép	Characters in red are incorrect and do not lucifer the top-left case.
CP 852	CP 437	╡RV╓ZTδRè TÜKÖRFΘRαGÉP árvízt√rï tükörfúrógép	This was very mutual in DOS-era when the text was encoded by the Key European CP 852 encoding; however, the operating system, a software or printer used the default CP 437 encoding. Please note that small-scale-case letters are mainly correct, exception with ő (ï) and ű (√). Ü/ü is correct because CP 852 was fabricated compatible with German. Nowadays occurs mainly on printed prescriptions and cheques.
CWI-2	CP 437	ÅRVìZTÿRº TÜKÖRFùRòGÉP árvíztûrô tükörfúrógép	The CWI-ii encoding was designed 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, but 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 i. Only ő-Ő (õ-Õ) and ű-Ű (û-Û) are wrong, just the text is completely readable. This is the most common error nowadays; due to ignorance, information technology occurs often on webpages or even in printed media.
CP 852	Windows-1250	µRVÖZTëRŠ TšK™RFéRŕOne thousand P rvˇztűr‹ t thou"rfŁr˘thou‚p	Cardinal European Windows encoding is used instead of DOS encoding. The utilise of ű is correct.
Windows-1250	CP 852	┴RV═ZT█RŇ T▄MÍRF┌RËG╔P ßrvÝztűr§ tŘk÷rf˙rˇthouÚp	Primal European DOS encoding is used instead of Windows encoding. The use of ű is correct.
Quoted-printable	vii-fleck ASCII	=C1RV=CDZT=DBR=D5 T=DCK=D6RF=DAR=D3G=C9P =E1rv=EDzt=FBr=F5 t=FCk=F6rf=FAr=F3yard=E9p	Mainly caused by wrongly configured mail service servers but may occur in SMS messages on some cell-phones likewise.
UTF-8	Windows-1252	ÁRVÍZTÅ°RŐ TÃœMÖRFÚRÃ"YardÉP árvÃztűrÅ' tükörfúrógép	Mainly caused by wrongly configured web services or webmail clients, which were non tested for international usage (as the problem remains concealed for English language texts). In this case the actual (often generated) content is in UTF-viii; even so, it is not configured in the HTML headers, and 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 character encodings such every bit AmigaPL on Amiga, Atari Order on Atari ST and Masovia, IBM CP852, Mazovia and Windows CP1250 on IBM PCs. Polish companies selling early on DOS computers created their own mutually-incompatible ways to encode Polish characters and merely reprogrammed the EPROMs of the video cards (typically CGA, EGA, or Hercules) to provide hardware code pages with the needed glyphs for Polish—arbitrarily located without reference to where other computer sellers had placed them.

The situation began to improve when, after pressure from academic and user groups, ISO 8859-2 succeeded as the "Internet standard" with limited support of the ascendant 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 Smoothen diacritical characters equally krzaczki ([kshach-kih], lit. "niggling shrubs").

Russian and other Cyrillic alphabets [edit]

Mojibake may be colloquially chosen 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 Information Exchange"). This began with Cyrillic-merely 7-bit KOI7, based on ASCII but with Latin and some other characters replaced with Cyrillic letters. Then came 8-bit KOI8 encoding that is an ASCII extension which encodes Cyrillic letters just with high-bit set octets respective to vii-chip codes from KOI7. It is for this reason that KOI8 text, even Russian, remains partially readable later on stripping the eighth chip, 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 so passed through the high bit stripping procedure, end up rendered every bit "[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 Belorussian every bit well equally 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 lawmaking points for practically all the characters of all the world'due south languages, including all Cyrillic characters.

Before Unicode, it was necessary to lucifer text encoding with a font using the same encoding system. Failure to do this produced unreadable gibberish whose specific appearance varied depending on the exact combination of text encoding and font encoding. For example, attempting to view not-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 nearly 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, simply 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 Www, both KOI8 and codepage 1251 were common. As of 2017, one can still encounter HTML pages in codepage 1251 and, rarely, KOI8 encodings, besides as Unicode. (An estimated ane.seven% of all spider web pages worldwide – all languages included – are encoded in codepage 1251.^[vii]) Though the HTML standard includes the ability to specify the encoding for whatever given web folio in its source,^[viii] this is sometimes neglected, forcing the user to switch encodings in the browser manually.

In Bulgarian, mojibake is oft called majmunica ( маймуница ), pregnant "monkey's [alphabet]". In Serbian, it is called đubre ( ђубре ), pregnant "trash". Unlike the sometime USSR, South Slavs never used something similar KOI8, and Lawmaking 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 own MIK encoding, which is superficially like to (although incompatible with) CP866.

Example

Russian case:		Кракозябры ( krakozyabry , garbage characters)
File encoding	Setting in browser	Result
MS-DOS 855	ISO 8859-i	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 seceding varieties of Serbo-Croatian language) and Slovene add together to the bones Latin alphabet the messages š, đ, č, ć, ž, and their majuscule 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 strange names, every bit well). All of these messages are defined in Latin-2 and Windows-1250, while simply 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 can occur with whatsoever of these characters, the letters that are non included in Windows-1252 are much more prone to errors. Thus, even present, "šđčćž ŠĐČĆŽ" is often displayed every bit "šðèæž ŠÐÈÆŽ", although ð, è, æ, È, Æ are never used in Slavic languages.

When bars to bones ASCII (most user names, for instance), 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 introduce ambiguities, so reconstructing the original from such a class is usually done manually if required.

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

The bulldoze to differentiate Croatian from Serbian, Bosnian from Croatian and Serbian, and now fifty-fifty Montenegrin from the other three creates many problems. There are many different localizations, using unlike standards and of different quality. There are no mutual translations for the vast amount of computer terminology originating in English language. In the terminate, 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 option in a menu is supposed to practise based on the translated phrase. Therefore, people who understand English, as well as those who are accustomed to English language terminology (who are most, because English terminology is as well generally taught in schools because of these bug) regularly choose the original English versions of non-specialist software.

When Cyrillic script is used (for Macedonian and partially Serbian), the trouble is like 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 tin exist and oftentimes was incorrectly set. For example, Windows 98 and Windows Me can exist set to near not-right-to-left single-byte code pages including 1250, but just 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 trouble is particularly astute in the case of ArmSCII or ARMSCII, a set up 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 computer industry. For example, Microsoft Windows does non support it.

Asian encodings [edit]

Another type of mojibake occurs when text is erroneously parsed in a multi-byte encoding, such as i of the encodings for East Asian languages. With this kind of mojibake more than one (typically 2) characters are corrupted at once, e.yard. "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 equally "än" (which becomes "舅"). Since two letters are combined, the mojibake also seems more random (over 50 variants compared to the normal three, not counting the rarer capitals). In some rare cases, an unabridged text cord which happens to include a pattern of particular word lengths, such as the sentence "Bush hid the facts", may be misinterpreted.

Vietnamese [edit]

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

Example:		Trăm năm trong cõi người ta (Truyện Kiều, Nguyễn Du)
Original encoding	Target encoding	Issue
Windows-1258	UTF-viii	Trăthousand northwardăone thousand trong cõi người ta
TCVN3	UTF-8	Tr¨m n¨m trong câi ngêi ta
VNI (Windows)	UTF-8	Traêm naêm trong coõi ngöôøi ta

Japanese [edit]

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

Chinese [edit]

In Chinese, the same phenomenon is chosen Luàn mǎ (Pinyin, Simplified Chinese 乱码 , Traditional Chinese 亂碼 , meaning 'chaotic code'), and can occur when computerised text is encoded in i Chinese character encoding but is displayed using the wrong encoding. When this occurs, information technology is often possible to ready the result by switching the character encoding without loss of information. The state of affairs is complicated because of the existence of several Chinese character encoding systems in employ, the most mutual ones existence: Unicode, Big5, and Guobiao (with several astern uniform versions), and the possibility of Chinese characters beingness encoded using Japanese encoding.

It is like shooting fish in a barrel to identify the original encoding when luanma occurs in Guobiao encodings:

Original encoding	Viewed as	Consequence	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 grapheme is non 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. Most of them are extremely uncommon and non in practical apply in modern Chinese.
EUC-KR	GB	叼力捞钙胶 抛农聪墨	디제이맥스 테크니카	Random common Simplified Chinese characters which in almost cases make no sense. Easily identifiable because of spaces between every several characters.

An boosted 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 )'southward "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.^[9]

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

Indic text [edit]

A like effect tin occur in Brahmic or Indic scripts of S Asia, used in such Indo-Aryan or Indic languages as Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu), Bengali, Panjabi, Marathi, 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 not be properly understood by a computer missing the appropriate software, even if the glyphs for the individual letter forms are available.

Ane example of this is the old Wikipedia logo, which attempts to evidence the character analogous to "wi" (the get-go syllable of "Wikipedia") on each of many puzzle pieces. The puzzle piece meant to bear 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 calculator not configured to display Indic text.^[x] The logo as redesigned equally of May 2010^[ref] has stock-still these errors.

The idea of Plain Text requires the operating system to provide a font to display Unicode codes. This font is different from Bone 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 commonly goes on top of a plain letter. Even so, information technology is wrong to get on top of some letters similar 'ya' or 'la' in specific contexts. For Sanskritic words or names inherited by modern languages, such as कार्य, IAST: kārya, or आर्या, IAST: āryā, information technology is apt to put information technology on top of these messages. By contrast, for like sounds in modern languages which result from their specific rules, it is not put on top, such as the word करणाऱ्या, IAST: karaṇāryā, a stem form of the common word करणारा/री, IAST: karaṇārā/rī, in the Marathi language.^[eleven] But it happens in most operating systems. This appears to be a fault of internal programming of the fonts. In Mac OS and iOS, the muurdhaja l (night l) and 'u' combination and its long grade both yield incorrect shapes.^{[ commendation needed ]}

Some Indic and Indic-derived scripts, most notably Lao, were non officially supported by Windows XP until the release of Vista.^[12] However, various sites take made gratis-to-download fonts.

Burmese [edit]

Due to Western sanctions^[xiii] and the late inflow of Burmese linguistic communication support in computers,^{[14] [xv]} 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 equally 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 as Samsung and Huawei only 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 every bit garbled text. To get around this issue, content producers would make posts in both Zawgyi and Unicode.^[18] Myanmar government has designated 1 October 2022 as "U-Day" to officially switch to Unicode.^[thirteen] The full transition is estimated to have 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 language, 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 generally supported. Various other writing systems native to West Africa present similar bug, such as the N'Ko alphabet, used for Manding languages in Guinea, and the Vai syllabary, used in Liberia.

Arabic [edit]

Some other affected language is Arabic (see below). The text becomes unreadable when the encodings do not lucifer.

Examples [edit]

File encoding	Setting in browser	Effect
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 commodity practise non have UTF-8 every bit browser setting, because UTF-8 is easily recognisable, then if a browser supports UTF-8 it should recognise it automatically, and not try to interpret something else as UTF-8.

See besides [edit]

• Code indicate
• Replacement graphic symbol
• Substitute graphic symbol
• Newline – The conventions for representing the line break differ betwixt Windows and Unix systems. Though most software supports both conventions (which is trivial), software that must preserve or display the divergence (e.chiliad. version control systems and information comparison tools) can go substantially more difficult to use if not adhering to one convention.
• Byte lodge mark – The most in-band way to store the encoding together with the data – prepend it. This is past intention invisible to humans using compliant software, but volition by blueprint 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 certain characters to escape estimation as markup.

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

• Bush hid the facts

References [edit]

1. ^ ^{a b} Rex, Ritchie (2012). "Will unicode before long be the universal code? [The Information]". IEEE Spectrum. 49 (7): lx. doi:10.1109/MSPEC.2012.6221090.
2. ^ WINDISCHMANN, Stephan (31 March 2004). "curlicue -5 linux.ars (Internationalization)". Ars Technica . Retrieved 5 October 2018.
3. ^ "Guidelines for extended attributes". 2013-05-17. Retrieved 2015-02-15 .
4. ^ "Unicode mailinglist on the Eudora email customer". 2001-05-13. Retrieved 2014-11-01 .
5. ^ "sms-scam". June xviii, 2014. Retrieved June xix, 2014.
6. ^ p. 141, Control + Alt + Delete: A Dictionary of Cyberslang, Jonathon Keats, Globe Pequot, 2007, ISBN ane-59921-039-viii.
7. ^ "Usage of Windows-1251 for websites".
8. ^ "Declaring character encodings in HTML".
9. ^ "PRC GBK (XGB)". Microsoft. Archived from the original on 2002-ten-01. Conversion map between Code folio 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://marāthi.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-Twenty-four hours", when Myanmar officially will prefer 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). "Boxing of the fonts". Frontier Myanmar . Retrieved 24 Dec 2019. With the release of Windows XP service pack 2, circuitous scripts were supported, which fabricated it possible for Windows to render a Unicode-compliant Burmese font such equally Myanmar1 (released in 2005). ... Myazedi, Chip, and subsequently Zawgyi, confining the rendering trouble by adding extra code points that were reserved for Myanmar'due south ethnic languages. Not only does the re-mapping prevent futurity ethnic language support, it also results in a typing organization that can be confusing and inefficient, even for experienced users. ... Huawei and Samsung, the 2 most pop smartphone brands in Myanmar, are motivated simply by capturing the largest market share, which means they back up Zawgyi out of the box.
15. ^ ^{a b} Sin, Thant (vii September 2019). "Unified under one font arrangement every bit 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 tongue processing
16. ^ "Why Unicode is Needed". Google Lawmaking: Zawgyi Project . Retrieved 31 Oct 2013.
17. ^ "Myanmar Scripts and Languages". Oft Asked Questions. Unicode Consortium. Retrieved 24 Dec 2019. "UTF-8" technically does not utilise 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 communication on digital platforms hard, as content written in Unicode appears garbled to Zawgyi users and vice versa. ... In order to better accomplish their audiences, content producers in Myanmar often post in both Zawgyi and Unicode in a single mail, not to mention English language or other languages.
19. ^ Saw Yi Nanda (21 Nov 2019). "Myanmar switch to Unicode to take 2 years: app developer". The Myanmar Times . Retrieved 24 December 2019.

External links [edit]

terrillpereplou1941.blogspot.com

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

Share this post