Ðâ±ã‘€ãâ¸ã‘‚ãâ½ãâ¸ Ñâãâ¿ãâ¸ã‘€ã‘⁠Baby One More Time Ñâãâºãâ°ã‘‡ãâ°ã‘‚ã‘å’ Mp3

Garbled text as a outcome of incorrect character encoding

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

This display may include the generic replacement grapheme ("�") in places where the binary representation is considered invalid. A replacement can also involve multiple consecutive 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-bit encodings vs European 8-fleck 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 dissimilar issue that is not to be confused with mojibake. Symptoms of this failed rendering include blocks with the code signal displayed in hexadecimal or using the generic replacement character. Importantly, these replacements are valid and are the result of correct error handling by the software.

Etymology [edit]

Mojibake ways "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 be preserved. As mojibake is the instance of non-compliance betwixt these, it can be achieved by manipulating the data itself, or but relabeling it.

Mojibake is often seen with text data that have been tagged with a incorrect encoding; it may non fifty-fifty be tagged at all, simply moved between computers with dissimilar default encodings. A major source of problem are communication protocols that rely on settings on each calculator 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 homo languages. Whereas Linux distributions generally switched to UTF-8 in 2004,^[2] Microsoft Windows generally uses UTF-16, and sometimes uses viii-bit code 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 oft. As a Japanese example, the give-and-take mojibake "文字化け" stored every bit EUC-JP might be incorrectly displayed every bit "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 equally Shift JIS. This is further exacerbated if other locales are involved: the aforementioned UTF-8 text appears as "文字化ã'" in software that assumes text to be in the Windows-1252 or ISO-8859-1 encodings, commonly labelled Western, or (for instance) as "鏂囧瓧鍖栥亼" if interpreted as being in a GBK (Mainland People's republic of china) locale.

Mojibake instance

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

Underspecification [edit]

If the encoding is not 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 non-then-uncommon scenarios.

The encoding of text files is afflicted past locale setting, which depends on the user's language, brand of operating system and peradventure other conditions. Therefore, the causeless encoding is systematically incorrect for files that come from a computer with a dissimilar setting, or even from a differently localized software within the same system. For Unicode, one solution is to employ a byte guild mark, but for source code and other auto readable text, many parsers don't tolerate this. Another is storing the encoding equally metadata in the file system. File systems that support extended file attributes can store this as user.charset.^[iii] This besides requires support in software that wants to take advantage of it, just does not disturb other software.

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

Mis-specification [edit]

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

Human ignorance [edit]

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

• Compatibility tin be a deceptive property, as the common subset of characters is unaffected by a mixup of two encodings (see Problems in different writing systems).
• People think they are using ASCII, and tend to label whatever superset of ASCII they actually use as "ASCII". Maybe for simplification, just even in academic literature, the word "ASCII" can be plant used every bit an case of something non compatible with Unicode, where evidently "ASCII" is Windows-1252 and "Unicode" is UTF-8.^[one] Note that UTF-8 is backwards compatible with ASCII.

Overspecification [edit]

When there are layers of protocols, each trying to specify the encoding based on different information, the least sure information may be misleading to the recipient. For case, consider a web server serving a static HTML file over HTTP. The grapheme set may be communicated to the client in whatever number of 3 ways:

• in the HTTP header. This information can be based on server configuration (for case, when serving a file off disk) 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 aspect of an XML declaration. This is the encoding that the writer meant to save the item file in.
• in the file, as a byte order mark. This is the encoding that the author'due south editor actually saved it in. Unless an accidental encoding conversion has happened (past opening it in one encoding and saving it in another), this will be right. Information technology is, however, only 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 one character set and the graphic symbol ready typically cannot be contradistinct. The character table independent within the brandish firmware volition be localized to take characters for the country the device is to exist sold in, and typically the table differs from country to country. As such, these systems will potentially display mojibake when loading text generated on a organization from a different land. As well, many early operating systems practice not support multiple encoding formats and thus volition finish up displaying mojibake if fabricated to brandish non-standard text—early versions of Microsoft Windows and Palm OS for case, are localized on a per-country ground and will but support encoding standards relevant to the country the localized version volition be sold in, and volition display mojibake if a file containing a text in a different 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 use and backward compatibility with Us-ASCII. UTF-viii besides has the power to exist directly recognised by a simple algorithm, then that well written software should be able to avoid mixing UTF-8 up with other encodings.

The difficulty of resolving an instance of mojibake varies depending on the application within which information technology occurs and the causes of information technology. Ii of the most common applications in which mojibake may occur are web browsers and discussion processors. Modern browsers and word processors often support a broad assortment of graphic symbol encodings. Browsers oft allow a user to change their rendering engine'south encoding setting on the fly, while word processors let the user to select the appropriate encoding when opening a file. It may take some trial and fault for users to find the correct encoding.

The problem gets more complicated when it occurs in an awarding that normally does not support a wide range of character encoding, such as in a non-Unicode reckoner game. In this case, the user must change the operating organization'due south encoding settings to lucifer that of the game. However, irresolute the organisation-wide encoding settings can besides crusade Mojibake in pre-existing applications. In Windows XP or later, a user besides has the option to use Microsoft AppLocale, an application that allows the irresolute of per-awarding locale settings. Withal, changing the operating system encoding settings is not possible on earlier operating systems such as Windows 98; to resolve this event on before operating systems, a user would have to use third party font rendering applications.

Problems in different writing systems [edit]

English [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 "£" will appear equally "£" if it was encoded past the sender as UTF-8 but interpreted past the recipient as CP1252 or ISO 8859-ane. If iterated using CP1252, this tin pb to "£", "£", "ÃÆ'‚£", etc.

Some computers did, in older eras, have vendor-specific encodings which caused mismatch also for English text. Commodore brand viii-flake computers used PETSCII encoding, peculiarly 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 letters. IBM mainframes use the EBCDIC encoding which does not match ASCII at all.

Other Western European languages [edit]

The alphabets of the Northward Germanic languages, Catalan, Finnish, German, French, Portuguese and Spanish are all extensions of the Latin alphabet. The additional characters are typically the ones that become corrupted, making texts just 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 High 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 character set (too known as Latin 1 or Western) has been in use. Withal, ISO-8859-1 has been obsoleted by 2 competing standards, the backward compatible Windows-1252, and the slightly altered ISO-8859-fifteen. Both add together the Euro sign € and the French œ, but otherwise any confusion of these iii graphic symbol sets does not create mojibake in these languages. Furthermore, it is always rubber to interpret ISO-8859-1 equally Windows-1252, and adequately safe to interpret it as ISO-8859-xv, in detail with respect to the Euro sign, which replaces the rarely used currency sign (¤). Withal, with the advent of UTF-8, mojibake has become more mutual in certain scenarios, eastward.g. commutation of text files between UNIX and Windows computers, due to UTF-8'due south incompatibility with Latin-1 and Windows-1252. But UTF-eight has the power to exist directly recognised past a simple algorithm, so that well written software should be able to avert mixing UTF-8 up with other encodings, so this was virtually common when many had software non supporting UTF-8. Most of these languages were supported by MS-DOS default CP437 and other automobile default encodings, except ASCII, so issues when buying an operating organization version were less common. Windows and MS-DOS are not compatible notwithstanding.

In Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and German, vowels are rarely repeated, and information technology is usually obvious when one character gets corrupted, e.g. the second letter in "kÃ⁠¤rlek" ( kärlek , "honey"). This way, even though the reader has to estimate between å, ä and ö, most all texts remain legible. Finnish text, on the other hand, does feature repeating vowels in words like hääyö ("hymeneals nighttime") which tin can sometimes render text very difficult to read (e.g. hääyö appears as "hÃ⁠¤Ã⁠¤yÃ⁠¶"). Icelandic and Faroese have x and eight possibly confounding characters, respectively, which thus can make it more hard to judge corrupted characters; Icelandic words like þjóðlöð ("outstanding hospitality") become almost entirely unintelligible when rendered as "þjóðlöð".

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

Some users transliterate their writing when using a computer, either by omitting the problematic diacritics, or 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 practice in High german when umlauts are non bachelor. The latter do seems to be better tolerated in the High german language sphere than in the Nordic countries. For example, in Norwegian, digraphs are associated with archaic Danish, and may be used jokingly. Even so, digraphs are useful in advice with other parts of the earth. Equally an example, 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-eight misinterpreted every bit ISO-8859-1, "Ring million nÃ¥" (" Ring one thousand thousand nå "), was seen in an SMS scam raging in Norway in June 2014.^[5]

Examples

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

Central and Eastern European [edit]

Users of Cardinal and Eastern European languages can also be affected. Because most computers were not continued to whatever network during the mid- to late-1980s, there were different character encodings for every language with diacritical characters (come across ISO/IEC 8859 and KOI-8), oft too varying by operating system.

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 nowadays in the Latin-ane grapheme prepare), plus the two characters ő and ű, which are non in Latin-i. These two characters tin can be correctly encoded in Latin-ii, Windows-1250 and Unicode. Before Unicode became common in e-post clients, due east-mails containing Hungarian text often had the letters ő and ű corrupted, sometimes to the indicate of unrecognizability. It is common to respond to an e-mail rendered unreadable (see examples beneath) by character mangling (referred to as "betűszemét", significant "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 practice not lucifer the top-left example.
CP 852	CP 437	╡RV╓ZTδRè TÜKÖRFΘRαGÉP árvízt√rï tükörfúrógép	This was very common in DOS-era when the text was encoded by the Primal European CP 852 encoding; however, the operating system, a software or printer used the default CP 437 encoding. Delight note that small-case messages are mainly correct, exception with ő (ï) and ű (√). Ü/ü is right considering CP 852 was made compatible with High german. Nowadays occurs mainly on printed prescriptions and cheques.
CWI-ii	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 1990s, merely present it is completely deprecated.
Windows-1250	Windows-1252	ÁRVÍZTÛRÕ TÜKÖRFÚRÓGÉP árvíztûrõ tükörfúrógép	The default Western Windows encoding is used instead of the Central-European 1. Merely 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, information technology occurs oft on webpages or fifty-fifty in printed media.
CP 852	Windows-1250	µRVÖZTëRŠ TšG™RFéRŕG P rvˇztűr‹ t k"rfŁr˘g‚p	Primal European Windows encoding is used instead of DOS encoding. The use of ű is correct.
Windows-1250	CP 852	┴RV═ZT█RŇ T▄KÍRF┌RËGrand╔P ßrvÝztűr§ tŘk÷rf˙rˇ1000Úp	Primal European DOS encoding is used instead of Windows encoding. The utilise of ű is right.
Quoted-printable	7-bit ASCII	=C1RV=CDZT=DBR=D5 T=DCK=D6RF=DAR=D3Chiliad=C9P =E1rv=EDzt=FBr=F5 t=FCk=F6rf=FAr=F3g=E9p	Mainly caused by wrongly configured mail service servers but may occur in SMS messages on some cell-phones as well.
UTF-8	Windows-1252	ÁRVÍZTÅ°RŐ TÃœKÖRFÚRÃ"GÉP árvÃztűrÅ' tükörfúrógép	Mainly caused by wrongly configured web services or webmail clients, which were non tested for international usage (as the trouble remains concealed for English texts). In this example the actual (often generated) content is in UTF-8; however, it is non configured in the HTML headers, so the rendering engine displays it with the default Western encoding.

Polish [edit]

Prior to the creation of ISO 8859-ii in 1987, users of diverse computing platforms used their own graphic symbol 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 DOS computers created their own mutually-incompatible ways to encode Polish characters and simply reprogrammed the EPROMs of the video cards (typically CGA, EGA, or Hercules) to provide hardware 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, later on pressure from academic and user groups, ISO 8859-ii succeeded as the "Cyberspace standard" with limited support of the ascendant vendors' software (today largely replaced by Unicode). With the numerous bug caused by the multifariousness 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.^{[half dozen]} The Soviet Union and early Russian Federation developed KOI encodings ( Kod Obmena Informatsiey , Код Обмена Информацией , which translates to "Lawmaking for Information Commutation"). This began with Cyrillic-only 7-scrap KOI7, based on ASCII but with Latin and some other characters replaced with Cyrillic letters. So came viii-bit KOI8 encoding that is an ASCII extension which encodes Cyrillic letters only with high-chip set octets corresponding to 7-chip codes from KOI7. It is for this reason that KOI8 text, even Russian, remains partially readable after stripping the eighth fleck, which was considered as a major advantage in the age of 8BITMIME-unaware email systems. For example, words " Школа русского языка " shkola russkogo yazyka , encoded in KOI8 and then passed through the high fleck stripping process, end up rendered as "[KOLA RUSSKOGO qZYKA". Somewhen KOI8 gained unlike 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 Belarusian as well 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 lawmaking points for practically all the characters of all the world's languages, including all Cyrillic characters.

Earlier Unicode, information technology was necessary to match 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 non-Unicode Cyrillic text using a font that is limited to the Latin alphabet, or using the default ("Western") encoding, typically results in text that consists almost entirely of vowels with diacritical marks. (KOI8 " Библиотека " ( biblioteka , library) becomes "âÉÂÌÉÏÔÅËÁ".) Using Windows codepage 1251 to view text in KOI8 or vice versa results in garbled text that consists mostly of majuscule letters (KOI8 and codepage 1251 share the same ASCII region, but KOI8 has uppercase letters in the region where codepage 1251 has lowercase, and vice versa). In general, Cyrillic gibberish is symptomatic of using the incorrect Cyrillic font. During the early on 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, as well 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 any 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 ), meaning "monkey'south [alphabet]". In Serbian, it is called đubre ( ђубре ), meaning "trash". Dissimilar the quondam USSR, Due south Slavs never used something similar KOI8, and Lawmaking Page 1251 was the ascendant Cyrillic encoding there before Unicode. Therefore, these languages experienced fewer encoding incompatibility troubles than Russian. In the 1980s, Bulgarian computers used their ain MIK encoding, which is superficially similar to (although incompatible with) CP866.

Case

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

Yugoslav languages [edit]

Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian (the dialects of the Yugoslav Serbo-Croatian language) and Slovenian add to the basic 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, more often than not in foreign names, likewise). All of these letters are defined in Latin-2 and Windows-1250, while only some (š, Š, ž, Ž, Đ) be in the usual Os-default Windows-1252, and are at that place because of some other languages.

Although Mojibake tin occur with whatsoever of these characters, the letters that are non 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 (almost user names, for example), common replacements are: š→s, đ→dj, č→c, ć→c, ž→z (capital forms analogously, with Đ→Dj or Đ→DJ depending on word example). All of these replacements introduce ambiguities, so reconstructing the original from such a form is unremarkably washed manually if required.

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

The bulldoze to differentiate Croatian from Serbian, Bosnian from Croatian and Serbian, and now even Montenegrin from the other three creates many problems. There are many different localizations, using different standards and of unlike quality. There are no common translations for the vast amount of computer terminology originating in English. In the terminate, people apply adopted English words ("kompjuter" for "reckoner", "kompajlirati" for "compile," etc.), and if they are unaccustomed to the translated terms may not sympathise what some pick in a bill of fare is supposed to do based on the translated phrase. Therefore, people who empathize English, too as those who are accustomed to English language terminology (who are most, considering English terminology is also mostly taught in schools considering of these issues) regularly choose the original English language versions of non-specialist software.

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

Newer versions of English Windows permit the lawmaking folio to be changed (older versions require special English versions with this back up), just this setting tin be and often was incorrectly set. For example, Windows 98 and Windows Me can be prepare to most not-correct-to-left single-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 set of obsolete character encodings for the Armenian alphabet which have been superseded by Unicode standards. ArmSCII is not widely used because of a lack of back up in the figurer industry. For example, Microsoft Windows does not back up it.

Asian encodings [edit]

Some other blazon of mojibake occurs when text is erroneously parsed in a multi-byte encoding, such as i of the encodings for E Asian languages. With this kind of mojibake more than one (typically two) characters are corrupted at in one case, e.g. "k舐lek" ( kärlek ) in Swedish, where " är " is parsed as "舐". Compared to the above mojibake, this is harder to read, since letters unrelated to the problematic å, ä or ö are missing, and is peculiarly problematic for curt words starting with å, ä or ö such as "än" (which becomes "舅"). Since two letters are combined, the mojibake also seems more random (over 50 variants compared to the normal iii, not counting the rarer capitals). In some rare cases, an entire text cord which happens to include a pattern of particular give-and-take lengths, such as the sentence "Bush hid the facts", may exist misinterpreted.

Japanese [edit]

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

Chinese [edit]

In Chinese, the same miracle 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 ane Chinese graphic symbol encoding simply is displayed using the wrong encoding. When this occurs, information technology is often possible to fix the result by switching the character encoding without loss of data. The state of affairs is complicated considering of the existence of several Chinese graphic symbol encoding systems in use, the nigh common ones being: Unicode, Big5, and Guobiao (with several backward compatible versions), and the possibility of Chinese characters beingness encoded using Japanese encoding.

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

Original encoding	Viewed as	Effect	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 cherry graphic symbol is not a valid codepoint in GB2312.
Shift-JIS	GB	暥帤壔偗僥僗僩	文字化けテスト	Kana is displayed equally characters with the radical 亻, while kanji are other characters. Most of them are extremely uncommon and not in practical employ in modern Chinese.
EUC-KR	GB	叼力捞钙胶 抛农聪墨	디제이맥스 테크니카	Random common Simplified Chinese characters which in most cases make no sense. Easily identifiable because of spaces between every several characters.

An additional problem is caused when encodings are missing characters, which is common with rare or blowsy characters that are nevertheless 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 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 trouble in various ways, including using software to combine two existing, similar characters; using a picture of the personality; or but substituting a homophone for the rare graphic symbol in the hope that the reader would exist able to make the correct inference.

Indic text [edit]

A similar issue can occur in Brahmic or Indic scripts of South asia, used in such Indo-Aryan or Indic languages equally Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu), Bengali, Punjabi, Marathi, and others, even if the grapheme fix employed is properly recognized by the application. This is considering, in many Indic scripts, the rules by which individual letter symbols combine to create symbols for syllables may non be properly understood by a calculator missing the appropriate software, fifty-fifty if the glyphs for the individual letter forms are bachelor.

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

The idea of Plain Text requires the operating system to provide a font to display Unicode codes. This font is dissimilar from Bone to OS for Singhala and it makes orthographically wrong glyphs for some letters (syllables) across all operating systems. For example, the 'reph', the short course for 'r' is a diacritic that unremarkably goes on top of a plain letter of the alphabet. Even so, information technology is wrong to go on summit of some messages like 'ya' or 'la' in specific contexts. For Sanskritic words or names inherited by modernistic languages, such equally कार्य, IAST: kārya, or आर्या, IAST: āryā, it is apt to put information technology on top of these letters. By contrast, for similar sounds in mod languages which result from their specific rules, it is not put on top, such as the give-and-take करणाऱ्या, IAST: karaṇāryā, a stem form of the common word करणारा/री, IAST: karaṇārā/rī, in the Marathi linguistic communication.^[11] But it happens in nigh operating systems. This appears to be a error of internal programming of the fonts. In Mac OS and iOS, the muurdhaja l (dark fifty) and 'u' combination and its long grade both yield wrong shapes.^{[ citation needed ]}

Some Indic and Indic-derived scripts, near notably Lao, were non officially supported by Windows XP until the release of Vista.^[12] Nevertheless, diverse sites have made free-to-download fonts.

Burmese [edit]

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

Due to these ad hoc encodings, communications between users of Zawgyi and Unicode would render as garbled text. To become around this event, content producers would brand posts in both Zawgyi and Unicode.^[18] Myanmar regime has designated ane October 2019 as "U-Twenty-four hours" to officially switch to Unicode.^[13] The full transition is estimated to have 2 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 Congo-kinshasa, simply these are not generally supported. Various other writing systems native to West Africa present 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 language is Arabic (see below). The text becomes unreadable when the encodings practise not match.

Examples [edit]

File encoding	Setting in browser	Result
Arabic example:		(Universal Declaration of Homo Rights)
Browser rendering:		الإعلان العالمى لحقوق الإنسان
UTF-viii	Windows-1252	الإعلان العالمى لحقوق الإنسان
	KOI8-R	О╩©ь╖ы└ь╔ь╧ы└ь╖ы├ ь╖ы└ь╧ь╖ы└ы┘ы┴ ы└ь╜ы┌ы┬ы┌ ь╖ы└ь╔ы├ьЁь╖ы├
	ISO 8859-v	яЛПиЇй�иЅиЙй�иЇй� иЇй�иЙиЇй�й�й� й�ий�й�й� иЇй�иЅй�иГиЇй�
	CP 866	я╗┐╪з┘Д╪е╪╣┘Д╪з┘Ж ╪з┘Д╪╣╪з┘Д┘Е┘Й ┘Д╪н┘В┘И┘В ╪з┘Д╪е┘Ж╪│╪з┘Ж
	ISO 8859-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, because UTF-viii is easily recognisable, so if a browser supports UTF-8 it should recognise it automatically, and not try to interpret something else every bit UTF-eight.

See as well [edit]

• Lawmaking indicate
• Replacement character
• Substitute character
• Newline – The conventions for representing the line break differ between Windows and Unix systems. Though virtually software supports both conventions (which is trivial), software that must preserve or display the departure (e.g. version control systems and data comparison tools) tin get substantially more difficult to use if not adhering to ane convention.
• Byte guild marking – The about in-band way to store 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 interpretation equally markup.

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

• Bush hid the facts

References [edit]

1. ^ ^{a b} Male monarch, Ritchie (2012). "Will unicode soon exist the universal code? [The Data]". IEEE Spectrum. 49 (7): 60. doi:10.1109/MSPEC.2012.6221090.
2. ^ WINDISCHMANN, Stephan (31 March 2004). "curl -v linux.ars (Internationalization)". Ars Technica . Retrieved five October 2018.
3. ^ "Guidelines for extended attributes". 2013-05-17. Retrieved 2015-02-15 .
4. ^ "Unicode mailinglist on the Eudora email client". 2001-05-thirteen. Retrieved 2014-eleven-01 .
5. ^ "sms-scam". June eighteen, 2014. Retrieved June xix, 2014.
6. ^ p. 141, Control + Alt + Delete: A Dictionary of Cyberslang, Jonathon Keats, Earth Pequot, 2007, ISBN 1-59921-039-eight.
7. ^ "Usage of Windows-1251 for websites".
8. ^ "Declaring character encodings in HTML".
9. ^ "PRC GBK (XGB)". Microsoft. Archived from the original on 2002-10-01. Conversion map betwixt 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'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 earth". The Japan Times. 27 September 2019. Retrieved 24 December 2019. October. i is "U-Day", when Myanmar officially will prefer the new system.... Microsoft and Apple helped other countries standardize years agone, merely Western sanctions meant Myanmar lost out.
14. ^ ^{a b} Hotchkiss, Griffin (March 23, 2016). "Battle of the fonts". Borderland Myanmar . Retrieved 24 Dec 2019. With the release of Windows XP service pack 2, circuitous scripts were supported, which made it possible for Windows to render a Unicode-compliant Burmese font such as Myanmar1 (released in 2005). ... Myazedi, BIT, and after Zawgyi, confining the rendering problem by calculation extra code points that were reserved for Myanmar's ethnic languages. Not but does the re-mapping prevent futurity ethnic linguistic communication support, it as well results in a typing system that can be confusing and inefficient, even for experienced users. ... Huawei and Samsung, the two almost 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 migrate from Zawgyi to Unicode". Rise Voices . Retrieved 24 December 2019. Standard Myanmar Unicode fonts were never mainstreamed different the private and partially Unicode compliant Zawgyi font. ... Unicode volition ameliorate natural language processing
16. ^ "Why Unicode is Needed". Google Lawmaking: Zawgyi Project . Retrieved 31 Oct 2013.
17. ^ "Myanmar Scripts and Languages". Frequently Asked Questions. Unicode Consortium. Retrieved 24 December 2019. "UTF-8" technically does non apply to ad hoc font encodings such as Zawgyi.
18. ^ LaGrow, Nick; Pruzan, Miri (September 26, 2019). "Integrating autoconversion: Facebook'southward path from Zawgyi to Unicode - Facebook Engineering". Facebook Applied science. 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 order to better reach their audiences, content producers in Myanmar often mail service in both Zawgyi and Unicode in a unmarried mail service, not to mention English or other languages.
19. ^ Saw Yi Nanda (21 Nov 2019). "Myanmar switch to Unicode to take two years: app programmer". The Myanmar Times . Retrieved 24 December 2019.

External links [edit]

mcdonaldgookishe.blogspot.com

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

Share this post