Ðâºãâ°ãâº Ðâ¿ãâ¾ãâ½ã‘âã‘‚ã‘å’ Ãâºãâ°ãâºãâ¾ãâ¹ Ã‘æ’ Ã‘â€šãâµãâ±ã‘⏠Tfv8 X-baby Tank

Garbled text equally a event of incorrect grapheme encoding

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

This display may include the generic replacement character ("�") in places where the binary representation is considered invalid. A replacement can also involve multiple consecutive symbols, as viewed in 1 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 sixteen-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 unlike issue that is non to be confused with mojibake. Symptoms of this failed rendering include blocks with the lawmaking signal displayed in hexadecimal or using the generic replacement character. Importantly, these replacements are valid and are the result of correct mistake handling past the software.

Etymology [edit]

Mojibake means "character transformation" in Japanese. The word is composed of 文字 (moji, IPA: [mod͡ʑi]), "character" and 化け (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 exist preserved. Equally mojibake is the instance of non-compliance betwixt these, it tin can exist achieved past manipulating the data itself, or just relabeling information technology.

Mojibake is often seen with text data that accept been tagged with a wrong encoding; information technology may non even be tagged at all, just moved between computers with different default encodings. A major source of trouble are communication protocols that rely on settings on each figurer rather than sending or storing metadata together with the data.

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

For some writing systems, an instance being Japanese, several encodings accept historically been employed, causing users to see mojibake relatively often. As a Japanese example, the discussion mojibake "文字化け" stored as 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 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 same UTF-eight text appears every bit "文字化ã'" in software that assumes text to be in the Windows-1252 or ISO-8859-1 encodings, ordinarily labelled Western, or (for example) as "鏂囧瓧鍖栥亼" if interpreted as being in a GBK (Mainland Red china) locale.

Mojibake instance

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

Underspecification [edit]

If the encoding is not specified, it is up to the software to determine information technology by other means. Depending on the type of software, the typical solution is either configuration or charset detection heuristics. Both are decumbent to mis-prediction in not-then-uncommon scenarios.

The encoding of text files is affected past locale setting, which depends on the user'southward language, brand of operating system and possibly other conditions. Therefore, the assumed encoding is systematically incorrect for files that come from a computer with a different setting, or fifty-fifty from a differently localized software within the aforementioned organisation. For Unicode, one solution is to use a byte order mark, but for source code and other machine readable text, many parsers don't tolerate this. Another is storing the encoding equally metadata in the file organization. File systems that back up extended file attributes can store this as user.charset.^[three] This also requires support in software that wants to have advantage of it, just does not disturb other software.

While a few encodings are like shooting fish in a barrel to observe, in particular UTF-viii, there are many that are hard to distinguish (see charset detection). A web browser may not exist able to distinguish a page coded in EUC-JP and another in Shift-JIS if the coding scheme is non assigned explicitly using HTTP headers sent forth with the documents, or using the HTML document's meta tags that are used to substitute for missing HTTP headers if the server cannot be configured to send the proper HTTP headers; see graphic symbol encodings in HTML.

Mis-specification [edit]

Mojibake likewise occurs when the encoding is wrongly specified. This often happens betwixt encodings that are like. For example, the Eudora email client for Windows was known to send emails labelled as ISO-8859-1 that were in reality Windows-1252.^[iv] The Mac OS version of Eudora did non exhibit this behaviour. Windows-1252 contains extra printable characters in the C1 range (the most ofttimes seen beingness curved quotation marks and actress 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 still in use, many are partially uniform with each other, with ASCII every bit the predominant common subset. This sets the stage for human ignorance:

• Compatibility can exist a deceptive belongings, as the common subset of characters is unaffected by a mixup of ii encodings (come across Problems in different writing systems).
• People remember they are using ASCII, and tend to label whatever superset of ASCII they actually employ every bit "ASCII". Perchance for simplification, merely even in academic literature, the discussion "ASCII" can be constitute used every bit an example of something not compatible with Unicode, where apparently "ASCII" is Windows-1252 and "Unicode" is UTF-8.^[i] Notation that UTF-viii is backwards compatible with ASCII.

Overspecification [edit]

When there are layers of protocols, each trying to specify the encoding based on dissimilar data, the least sure information may be misleading to the recipient. For example, consider a spider web server serving a static HTML file over HTTP. The character ready may exist communicated to the client in any number of 3 ways:

• in the HTTP header. This information tin 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, as an HTML meta tag (http-equiv or charset) or the encoding attribute of an XML proclamation. This is the encoding that the writer meant to save the particular file in.
• in the file, as a byte order mark. This is the encoding that the author's editor actually saved information technology in. Unless an accidental encoding conversion has happened (by opening it in one encoding and saving it in another), this will be right. It is, however, simply bachelor 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 1 character set and the graphic symbol set typically cannot be altered. The graphic symbol tabular array contained within the display firmware will be localized to have characters for the land the device is to exist sold in, and typically the table differs from country to country. As such, these systems will potentially brandish mojibake when loading text generated on a system from a dissimilar country. Besides, many early on operating systems do not support multiple encoding formats and thus will end up displaying mojibake if fabricated to display not-standard text—early versions of Microsoft Windows and Palm Os for case, are localized on a per-country basis and will only support encoding standards relevant to the land the localized version will be sold in, and volition brandish mojibake if a file containing a text in a dissimilar encoding format from the version that the Os is designed to back up is opened.

Resolutions [edit]

Applications using UTF-eight as a default encoding may reach a greater degree of interoperability because of its widespread use and backward compatibility with US-ASCII. UTF-8 also has the ability to exist direct recognised by a unproblematic algorithm, so that well written software should be able to avoid mixing UTF-8 upwardly with other encodings.

The difficulty of resolving an instance of mojibake varies depending on the application within which it occurs and the causes of it. Two of the most mutual applications in which mojibake may occur are web browsers and word processors. Modern browsers and give-and-take processors oft back up a broad assortment of character encodings. Browsers often allow a user to modify their rendering engine's encoding setting on the fly, while word processors permit the user to select the appropriate encoding when opening a file. It may take some trial and error for users to find the right encoding.

The problem gets more complicated when information technology occurs in an application that normally does non support a wide range of grapheme encoding, such as in a non-Unicode computer game. In this case, the user must alter the operating system's encoding settings to match that of the game. However, changing the arrangement-broad encoding settings can as well 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 changing of per-application locale settings. Even so, changing the operating system encoding settings is non possible on earlier operating systems such equally Windows 98; to resolve this event on before operating systems, a user would have to use tertiary party font rendering applications.

Bug in dissimilar writing systems [edit]

English [edit]

Mojibake in English texts by and large occurs in punctuation, such as em dashes (—), en dashes (–), and curly quotes (",",','), just rarely in graphic symbol text, since most encodings concord with ASCII on the encoding of the English alphabet. For instance, the pound sign "£" will appear as "£" if it was encoded by the sender as UTF-8 but interpreted by the recipient equally CP1252 or ISO 8859-1. If iterated using CP1252, this can lead to "£", "£", "ÃÆ'‚£", etc.

Some computers did, in older eras, have vendor-specific encodings which caused mismatch likewise for English text. Commodore brand eight-flake 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 use the EBCDIC encoding which does not lucifer 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 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 language
• á, ð, í, ó, ú, ý, æ, ø in Faroese
• á, ð, é, í, ó, ú, ý, þ, æ, ö in Icelandic
• à, â, ç, è, é, ë, ê, ï, î, ô, ù, û, ü, ÿ, æ, œ in French
• à, è, é, ì, ò, ù in Italian
• á, é, í, ñ, ó, ú, ü, ¡, ¿ in 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 majuscule counterparts, if applicable.

These are languages for which the ISO-8859-one character gear up (also known as Latin i or Western) has been in utilise. Even so, ISO-8859-one has been obsoleted by two competing standards, the astern uniform Windows-1252, and the slightly contradistinct ISO-8859-15. Both add the Euro sign € and the French œ, but otherwise any confusion of these three character sets does non create mojibake in these languages. Furthermore, it is always safe to interpret ISO-8859-1 as Windows-1252, and fairly safe to translate information technology as ISO-8859-fifteen, in particular with respect to the Euro sign, which replaces the rarely used currency sign (¤). Nevertheless, with the advent of UTF-8, mojibake has become more than common in certain scenarios, e.g. exchange of text files betwixt UNIX and Windows computers, due to UTF-8'due south incompatibility with Latin-1 and Windows-1252. Merely UTF-8 has the power to be directly recognised by a simple algorithm, so that well written software should exist able to avoid mixing UTF-8 upward with other encodings, so this was about common 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 bug when ownership an operating organisation version were less mutual. Windows and MS-DOS are not compatible however.

In Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and German, vowels are rarely repeated, and information technology is usually obvious when one grapheme gets corrupted, e.chiliad. the 2nd letter in "kÃ⁠¤rlek" ( kärlek , "beloved"). This way, even though the reader has to approximate between å, ä and ö, nearly all texts remain legible. Finnish text, on the other hand, does feature repeating vowels in words similar hääyö ("wedding ceremony dark") which can sometimes render text very difficult to read (e.g. hääyö appears as "hÃ⁠¤Ã⁠¤yÃ⁠¶"). Icelandic and Faeroese have ten and 8 mayhap confounding characters, respectively, which thus tin brand information technology more difficult to guess corrupted characters; Icelandic words like þjóðlöð ("outstanding hospitality") become almost entirely unintelligible when rendered every bit "þjóðlöð".

In German, Buchstabensalat ("letter of the alphabet salad") is a mutual 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 practice in German when umlauts are non bachelor. The latter practice seems to exist better tolerated in the 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 communication with other parts of the earth. Every bit an example, the Norwegian football player Ole Gunnar Solskjær had his name spelled "SOLSKJAER" on his back when he played for Manchester United.

An antiquity 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 example:		Smörgås (open up sandwich)
File encoding	Setting in browser	Consequence
MS-DOS 437	ISO 8859-1	Sm"rg†s
ISO 8859-1	Mac Roman	SmˆrgÂs
UTF-8	ISO 8859-ane	Smörgås
UTF-8	Mac Roman	Smörgåsouthward

Central and Eastern European [edit]

Users of Central and Eastern European languages can also exist affected. Because most computers were not connected to any network during the mid- to late-1980s, at that place were different grapheme encodings for every linguistic communication with diacritical characters (see ISO/IEC 8859 and KOI-8), often also varying by operating organization.

Hungarian [edit]

Hungarian is another affected language, which uses the 26 basic English language characters, plus the accented forms á, é, í, ó, ú, ö, ü (all present in the Latin-1 grapheme set), plus the 2 characters ő and ű, which are non in Latin-1. These ii characters tin be correctly encoded in Latin-2, Windows-1250 and Unicode. Earlier Unicode became common in email clients, east-mails containing Hungarian text often had the letters ő and ű corrupted, sometimes to the betoken of unrecognizability. It is common to respond to an e-mail rendered unreadable (run across examples below) by graphic symbol mangling (referred to as "betűszemét", significant "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 example		ÁRVÍZTŰRŐ TÜKÖRFÚRÓGÉP árvíztűrő tükörfúrógép	Characters in red are incorrect and do not match the peak-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 Fundamental European CP 852 encoding; however, the operating system, a software or printer used the default CP 437 encoding. Please note that small-case letters are mainly correct, exception with ő (ï) and ű (√). Ü/ü is correct because CP 852 was made compatible with German. Nowadays occurs mainly on printed prescriptions and cheques.
CWI-ii	CP 437	ÅRVìZTÿRº TÜKÖRFùRòGÉP árvíztûrô tükörfúrógép	The CWI-two encoding was designed so that the text remains adequately well-readable even if the display or printer uses the default CP 437 encoding. This encoding was heavily used in the 1980s and early 1990s, but nowadays information technology is completely deprecated.
Windows-1250	Windows-1252	ÁRVÍZTÛRÕ TÜKÖRFÚRÓGÉP árvíztûrõ tükörfúrógép	The default Western Windows encoding is used instead of the Central-European one. Only ő-Ő (õ-Õ) and ű-Ű (û-Û) are incorrect, just the text is completely readable. This is the nigh mutual fault nowadays; due to ignorance, it occurs often on webpages or even in printed media.
CP 852	Windows-1250	µRVÖZTëRŠ TšK™RFéRŕOne thousand P rvˇztűr‹ t g"rfŁr˘one thousand‚p	Central European Windows encoding is used instead of DOS encoding. The employ of ű is correct.
Windows-1250	CP 852	┴RV═ZT█RŇ T▄GÍRF┌RËG╔P ßrvÝztűr§ tŘ1000÷rf˙rˇgÚp	Primal European DOS encoding is used instead of Windows encoding. The use of ű is correct.
Quoted-printable	7-bit ASCII	=C1RV=CDZT=DBR=D5 T=DCYard=D6RF=DAR=D3G=C9P =E1rv=EDzt=FBr=F5 t=FCk=F6rf=FAr=F3grand=E9p	Mainly caused by wrongly configured mail service servers merely may occur in SMS messages on some prison cell-phones equally well.
UTF-viii	Windows-1252	ÁRVÍZTÅ°RŐ TÃœKÖRFÚRÃ"GÉP árvÃztűrÅ' tü1000örfúrókép	Mainly caused by wrongly configured spider web services or webmail clients, which were not tested for international usage (as the problem remains concealed for English texts). In this case the bodily (often generated) content is in UTF-8; nevertheless, 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-two in 1987, users of various computing platforms used their ain grapheme encodings such as 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 ain mutually-incompatible ways to encode Smooth characters and simply reprogrammed the EPROMs of the video cards (typically CGA, EGA, or Hercules) to provide hardware code pages with the needed glyphs for Smooth—arbitrarily located without reference to where other figurer sellers had placed them.

The situation began to improve when, after pressure from academic and user groups, ISO 8859-two succeeded as the "Internet standard" with limited support of the dominant vendors' software (today largely replaced by Unicode). With the numerous problems acquired by the multifariousness of encodings, fifty-fifty today some users tend to refer to Polish diacritical characters as 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 Russia adult KOI encodings ( Kod Obmena Informatsiey , Код Обмена Информацией , which translates to "Code for Data Exchange"). This began with Cyrillic-just seven-bit KOI7, based on ASCII simply with Latin and some other characters replaced with Cyrillic messages. Then came eight-scrap KOI8 encoding that is an ASCII extension which encodes Cyrillic messages only with high-bit set octets corresponding to 7-chip codes from KOI7. Information technology is for this reason that KOI8 text, even Russian, remains partially readable afterward stripping the eighth bit, which was considered equally a major advantage in the age of 8BITMIME-unaware email systems. For case, words " Школа русского языка " shkola russkogo yazyka , encoded in KOI8 and and then passed through the loftier flake stripping process, finish up rendered equally "[KOLA RUSSKOGO qZYKA". Eventually KOI8 gained different flavors for Russian and Bulgarian (KOI8-R), Ukrainian (KOI8-U), Belorussian (KOI8-RU) and even Tajik (KOI8-T).

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

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

Before Unicode, it was necessary to match text encoding with a font using the same encoding organization. Failure to do this produced unreadable gibberish whose specific advent 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 express to the Latin alphabet, or using the default ("Western") encoding, typically results in text that consists almost entirely of vowels with diacritical marks. (KOI8 " Библиотека " ( biblioteka , library) becomes "âÉÂÌÉÏÔÅËÁ".) Using Windows codepage 1251 to view text in KOI8 or vice versa results in garbled text that consists by and large of majuscule messages (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 full general, Cyrillic gibberish is symptomatic of using the wrong Cyrillic font. During the early years of the Russian sector of the Earth Broad Web, both KOI8 and codepage 1251 were mutual. As of 2017, one can still encounter HTML pages in codepage 1251 and, rarely, KOI8 encodings, also as Unicode. (An estimated 1.7% 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 whatever given web page in its source,^[8] this is sometimes neglected, forcing the user to switch encodings in the browser manually.

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

Example

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

Yugoslav languages [edit]

Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian (the dialects of the Yugoslav Serbo-Croation language) and Slovenian add to the basic Latin alphabet the letters š, đ, č, ć, ž, and their capital letter 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, likewise). All of these messages are divers in Latin-two and Windows-1250, while only 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 decumbent to errors. Thus, fifty-fifty nowadays, "šđčćž ŠĐČĆŽ" is ofttimes displayed equally "šðèæž ŠÐÈÆŽ", although ð, è, æ, È, Æ are never used in Slavic languages.

When confined to basic ASCII (nearly user names, for case), common replacements are: š→s, đ→dj, č→c, ć→c, ž→z (capital forms analogously, with Đ→Dj or Đ→DJ depending on give-and-take case). All of these replacements introduce ambiguities, then reconstructing the original from such a form is ordinarily washed manually if required.

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

The drive to differentiate Croation from Serbian, Bosnian from Croatian and Serbian, and at present even Montenegrin from the other iii creates many issues. There are many different localizations, using different standards and of different quality. There are no common translations for the vast corporeality of reckoner terminology originating in English. In the finish, people utilise adopted English words ("kompjuter" for "calculator", "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 practice based on the translated phrase. Therefore, people who understand English, as well as those who are accustomed to English terminology (who are most, because English language terminology is also by and large taught in schools because of these problems) regularly choose the original English versions of non-specialist software.

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

Newer versions of English Windows permit the lawmaking folio to be inverse (older versions require special English language versions with this support), but this setting tin exist and often was incorrectly set. For example, Windows 98 and Windows Me can be fix to most non-correct-to-left single-byte code pages including 1250, but only at install time.

Caucasian languages [edit]

The writing systems of certain languages of the Caucasus region, including the scripts of Georgian and Armenian, may produce mojibake. This problem is specially acute in the case of ArmSCII or ARMSCII, a set 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 support in the calculator manufacture. For example, Microsoft Windows does non support information technology.

Asian encodings [edit]

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

Japanese [edit]

In Japanese, the phenomenon is, as mentioned, called mojibake ( 文字化け ). It is a particular problem in Japan due to the numerous different encodings that exist for Japanese text. Aslope Unicode encodings like UTF-8 and UTF-sixteen, in that location are other standard encodings, such every bit Shift-JIS (Windows machines) and EUC-JP (UNIX systems). Mojibake, besides every bit being encountered by Japanese users, is too often encountered by not-Japanese when attempting to run software written for the Japanese market place.

Chinese [edit]

In Chinese, the same phenomenon is called Luàn mǎ (Pinyin, Simplified Chinese 乱码 , Traditional Chinese 亂碼 , meaning 'chaotic lawmaking'), and tin occur when computerised text is encoded in one Chinese character encoding merely is displayed using the wrong encoding. When this occurs, it is frequently possible to gear up the upshot past switching the graphic symbol encoding without loss of information. The situation is complicated because of the being of several Chinese grapheme encoding systems in use, the well-nigh mutual ones being: Unicode, Big5, and Guobiao (with several backward compatible versions), and the possibility of Chinese characters beingness encoded using Japanese encoding.

It is easy to identify 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 pregnant. The red character 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 as characters with the radical 亻, while kanji are other characters. Most of them are extremely uncommon and not 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 most cases brand no sense. Hands identifiable because of spaces betwixt every several characters.

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

Newspapers have dealt with this trouble in diverse ways, including using software to combine 2 existing, similar characters; using a picture of the personality; or simply substituting a homophone for the rare character in the promise that the reader would exist 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 every bit Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu), Bengali, Panjabi, Marathi, and others, fifty-fifty if the character set employed is properly recognized by the application. This is because, in many Indic scripts, the rules by which private letter of the alphabet symbols combine to create symbols for syllables may not be properly understood by a figurer 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 bear witness the grapheme analogous to "wi" (the first 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 figurer not configured to display Indic text.^[10] The logo as redesigned equally of May 2010^[ref] has fixed these errors.

The idea of Evidently Text requires the operating organization to provide a font to display Unicode codes. This font is different from OS to OS 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 letter. However, it is wrong to go on superlative of some messages 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 it on top of these letters. By contrast, for similar sounds in modern languages which result from their specific rules, it is non put on top, such as the word करणाऱ्या, IAST: karaṇāryā, a stalk grade of the common word करणारा/री, IAST: karaṇārā/rī, in the Marä thi language.^[11] But it happens in virtually operating systems. This appears to be a fault of internal programming of the fonts. In Mac Os and iOS, the muurdhaja l (dark l) and 'u' combination and its long class both yield incorrect shapes.^{[ citation needed ]}

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

Burmese [edit]

Due to Western sanctions^[13] and the late arrival of Burmese language support in computers,^{[14] [15]} much of the early Burmese localization was homegrown without international cooperation. The prevailing means of Burmese support is via the Zawgyi font, a font that was created equally a Unicode font but was in fact but partially Unicode compliant.^[15] In the Zawgyi font, some codepoints for Burmese script were implemented as specified in Unicode, merely others were not.^[16] The Unicode Consortium refers to this every bit advertisement hoc font encodings.^[17] With the advent of mobile phones, mobile vendors such as Samsung and Huawei simply replaced the Unicode compliant organization fonts with Zawgyi versions.^[fourteen]

Due to these ad hoc encodings, communications between users of Zawgyi and Unicode would render as garbled text. To go around this result, content producers would make posts in both Zawgyi and Unicode.^[18] Myanmar government has designated 1 Oct 2019 as "U-Solar day" to officially switch to Unicode.^[13] The total transition is estimated to take two years.^[19]

African languages [edit]

In certain writing systems of Africa, unencoded text is unreadable. Texts that may produce mojibake include those from the Horn of Africa such as the Ge'ez script in Ethiopia and Eritrea, used for Amharic, Tigre, and other languages, and the Somali 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 Autonomous Democracy of the Congo, only these are not generally supported. Various other writing systems native to West Africa nowadays similar problems, such as the N'Ko alphabet, used for Manding languages in Guinea, and the Vai syllabary, used in Liberia.

Arabic [edit]

Another affected linguistic communication is Arabic (see below). The text becomes unreadable when the encodings do not match.

Examples [edit]

File encoding	Setting in browser	Effect
Standard arabic example:		(Universal Proclamation 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 8859-6	ُ؛؟ظ�ع�ظ�ظ�ع�ظ�ع� ظ�ع�ظ�ظ�ع�ع�ع� ع�ظع�ع�ع� ظ�ع�ظ�ع�ظ�ظ�ع�
	ISO 8859-2	اŮ�ŘĽŘšŮ�اŮ� اŮ�ؚاŮ�Ů�Ů� Ů�ŘŮ�Ů�Ů� اŮ�ŘĽŮ�ساŮ�
Windows-1256	Windows-1252	ÇáÅÚáÇä ÇáÚÇáãì áÍÞæÞ ÇáÅäÓÇä

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

Meet also [edit]

• Lawmaking bespeak
• Replacement character
• Substitute character
• Newline – The conventions for representing the line break differ between Windows and Unix systems. Though most software supports both conventions (which is trivial), software that must preserve or brandish the difference (e.one thousand. version command systems and data comparison tools) tin get essentially more difficult to use if non adhering to one convention.
• Byte order mark – The most in-band way to shop the encoding together with the data – prepend it. This is by intention invisible to humans using compliant software, but will past 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 certain characters to escape estimation equally markup.

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

• Bush hid the facts

References [edit]

1. ^ ^{a b} Male monarch, Ritchie (2012). "Will unicode soon exist the universal lawmaking? [The Data]". IEEE Spectrum. 49 (7): sixty. doi:10.1109/MSPEC.2012.6221090.
2. ^ WINDISCHMANN, Stephan (31 March 2004). "scroll -v 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 nineteen, 2014.
6. ^ p. 141, Control + Alt + Delete: A Lexicon of Cyberslang, Jonathon Keats, Earth Pequot, 2007, ISBN i-59921-039-eight.
7. ^ "Usage of Windows-1251 for websites".
8. ^ "Declaring character encodings in HTML".
9. ^ "People's republic of china GBK (XGB)". Microsoft. Archived from the original on 2002-x-01. Conversion map between Code page 936 and Unicode. Need manually selecting GB18030 or GBK in browser to view it correctly.
10. ^ Cohen, Noam (June 25, 2007). "Some Errors Defy Fixes: A Typo in Wikipedia's Logo Fractures the Sanskrit". The New York Times . Retrieved July 17, 2009.
11. ^ https://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 world". The Japan Times. 27 September 2019. Retrieved 24 December 2019. Oct. 1 is "U-Day", when Myanmar officially will adopt the new organisation.... Microsoft and Apple tree 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 December 2019. With the release of Windows XP service pack 2, complex scripts were supported, which fabricated information technology possible for Windows to render a Unicode-compliant Burmese font such every bit Myanmar1 (released in 2005). ... Myazedi, Scrap, and afterwards Zawgyi, circumscribed the rendering problem by adding actress code points that were reserved for Myanmar's indigenous languages. Non only does the re-mapping forbid future indigenous language support, it also results in a typing system that can be confusing and inefficient, fifty-fifty for experienced users. ... Huawei and Samsung, the two near popular smartphone brands in Myanmar, are motivated only by capturing the largest marketplace share, which means they support Zawgyi out of the box.
15. ^ ^{a b} Sin, Thant (7 September 2019). "Unified under one font system as Myanmar prepares to migrate from Zawgyi to Unicode". Ascent 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 Code: Zawgyi Project . Retrieved 31 Oct 2013.
17. ^ "Myanmar Scripts and Languages". Oft 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 communication on digital platforms difficult, as content written in Unicode appears garbled to Zawgyi users and vice versa. ... In guild to better achieve their audiences, content producers in Myanmar oft post in both Zawgyi and Unicode in a single mail service, not to mention English or other languages.
19. ^ Saw Yi Nanda (21 November 2019). "Myanmar switch to Unicode to have two years: app developer". The Myanmar Times . Retrieved 24 Dec 2019.

External links [edit]

morganallon1966.blogspot.com

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

Share this post