what to do if someone doesn’t take “no” seriously.

Garbled text as a result of incorrect character encoding

Mojibake ( 文字化け ; IPA: [mod͡ʑibake]) is the garbled text that is the outcome of text being decoded using an unintended character encoding.^[1] The event 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 one encoding, when the same binary code constitutes i symbol in the other encoding. This is either because of differing constant length encoding (as in Asian 16-bit encodings vs European 8-bit encodings), or the utilise of variable length encodings (notably UTF-eight and UTF-xvi).

Failed rendering of glyphs due to either missing fonts or missing glyphs in a font is a different effect that is non to exist confused with mojibake. Symptoms of this failed rendering include blocks with the code point displayed in hexadecimal or using the generic replacement character. Chiefly, these replacements are valid and are the issue of right error treatment by the software.

Etymology [edit]

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

Causes [edit]

To correctly reproduce the original text that was encoded, the correspondence between the encoded information and the notion of its encoding must be preserved. As mojibake is the case of not-compliance between these, it tin be achieved by manipulating the information itself, or just relabeling it.

Mojibake is often seen with text information that have been tagged with a wrong encoding; it may not even be tagged at all, but moved between computers with dissimilar default encodings. A major source of trouble are advice protocols that rely on settings on each estimator rather than sending or storing metadata together with the data.

The differing default settings between computers are in 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 by and large switched to UTF-viii in 2004,^[two] Microsoft Windows generally uses UTF-16, and sometimes uses 8-flake lawmaking pages for text files in dissimilar languages.^{[ dubious – talk over ]}

For some writing systems, an example being Japanese, several encodings take historically been employed, causing users to see mojibake relatively often. As a Japanese instance, the word mojibake "文字化け" stored as 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-viii is displayed as "譁�蟄怜喧縺�" if interpreted equally Shift JIS. This is farther exacerbated if other locales are involved: the same UTF-8 text appears every bit "文字化ã'" in software that assumes text to exist in the Windows-1252 or ISO-8859-1 encodings, usually labelled Western, or (for instance) as "鏂囧瓧鍖栥亼" if interpreted as existence in a GBK (Mainland China) locale.

Mojibake example

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 as 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 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-so-uncommon scenarios.

The encoding of text files is affected past locale setting, which depends on the user's language, brand of operating system and possibly other atmospheric condition. Therefore, the assumed encoding is systematically wrong for files that come from a computer with a different setting, or even from a differently localized software inside the aforementioned system. For Unicode, 1 solution is to utilise a byte order mark, but 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 back up extended file attributes can store this as user.charset.^[3] This as well requires support in software that wants to take advantage of information technology, but 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 (come across charset detection). A spider web browser may not be able to distinguish a page coded in EUC-JP and another in Shift-JIS if the coding scheme is not assigned explicitly using HTTP headers sent 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; meet character encodings in HTML.

Mis-specification [edit]

Mojibake as well occurs when the encoding is wrongly specified. This oft happens between encodings that are similar. For example, the Eudora email client for Windows was known to send emails labelled as ISO-8859-i that were in reality Windows-1252.^[four] The Mac OS version of Eudora did not exhibit this behaviour. Windows-1252 contains extra printable characters in the C1 range (the most oft seen being curved quotation marks and extra dashes), that were non displayed properly in software complying with the ISO standard; this specially afflicted software running nether other operating systems such as Unix.

Human ignorance [edit]

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

• Compatibility tin can exist a deceptive property, as the common subset of characters is unaffected past a mixup of two encodings (encounter Problems in different writing systems).
• People think they are using ASCII, and tend to label whatever superset of ASCII they really utilize every bit "ASCII". Perchance for simplification, but even in bookish literature, the word "ASCII" can exist found used as an example of something not compatible with Unicode, where evidently "ASCII" is Windows-1252 and "Unicode" is UTF-eight.^[1] Note that UTF-8 is backwards compatible with ASCII.

Overspecification [edit]

When in that location are layers of protocols, each trying to specify the encoding based on different information, the to the lowest degree sure information may exist misleading to the recipient. For example, consider a spider web server serving a static HTML file over HTTP. The grapheme set may be communicated to the customer in any number of three ways:

• in the HTTP header. This information tin be based on server configuration (for instance, when serving a file off 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 attribute of an XML proclamation. This is the encoding that the writer meant to salvage the particular file in.
• in the file, as a byte social club marker. This is the encoding that the author'due south editor really saved it in. Unless an accidental encoding conversion has happened (by opening it in i encoding and saving information technology in another), this will exist correct. 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 support just one character set and the character set up typically cannot be contradistinct. The character table contained inside the display firmware will exist localized to have characters for the state the device is to be sold in, and typically the table differs from country to land. Equally such, these systems will potentially display mojibake when loading text generated on a arrangement from a different country. Besides, many early operating systems do not support multiple encoding formats and thus will stop upward displaying mojibake if fabricated to display non-standard text—early versions of Microsoft Windows and Palm OS for case, are localized on a per-land ground and will just support encoding standards relevant to the country the localized version will exist sold in, and will display mojibake if a file containing a text in a different encoding format from the version that the OS is designed to back up is opened.

Resolutions [edit]

Applications using UTF-8 every bit a default encoding may achieve a greater degree of interoperability considering of its widespread use and backward compatibility with Usa-ASCII. UTF-8 likewise has the ability to be directly recognised past a simple algorithm, and then that well written software should be able to avoid 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 it. Two of the well-nigh mutual applications in which mojibake may occur are web browsers and give-and-take processors. Modern browsers and give-and-take processors often back up a wide array of character encodings. Browsers ofttimes allow a user to alter their rendering engine'due south encoding setting on the wing, while discussion processors allow the user to select the appropriate encoding when opening a file. It may take some trial and error for users to discover the right encoding.

The trouble gets more complicated when information technology occurs in an application that usually does not support a wide range of graphic symbol encoding, such as in a non-Unicode figurer game. In this instance, the user must modify the operating system's encoding settings to friction match that of the game. Withal, changing the organisation-wide encoding settings can besides cause Mojibake in pre-existing applications. In Windows XP or afterwards, a user also has the choice to use Microsoft AppLocale, an awarding that allows the changing of per-application locale settings. Yet, changing the operating arrangement encoding settings is not possible on before operating systems such as Windows 98; to resolve this upshot on before operating systems, a user would have to use third party font rendering applications.

Issues in unlike writing systems [edit]

English language [edit]

Mojibake in English language texts generally occurs in punctuation, such as em dashes (—), en dashes (–), and curly quotes (",",','), only rarely in character text, since nigh encodings concur with ASCII on the encoding of the English alphabet. For example, the pound sign "£" will appear as "£" if it was encoded by the sender as UTF-viii but interpreted past 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 caused mismatch also for English text. Commodore brand 8-bit 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, but flipped the example 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 North Germanic languages, Catalan, Finnish, High 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 German language
• á, ð, í, ó, ú, ý, æ, ø in Faeroese
• á, ð, é, í, ó, ú, ý, þ, æ, ö in Icelandic
• à, â, ç, è, é, ë, ê, ï, î, ô, ù, û, ü, ÿ, æ, œ in French
• à, è, é, ì, ò, ù in Italian
• á, é, í, ñ, ó, ú, ü, ¡, ¿ in Spanish
• à, á, â, ã, ç, é, ê, í, ó, ô, õ, ú in Portuguese (ü no longer used)
• á, é, í, ó, ú in Irish
• à, è, ì, ò, ù in Scottish Gaelic
• £ in British English

… and their uppercase counterparts, if applicative.

These are languages for which the ISO-8859-1 grapheme ready (also known as Latin 1 or Western) has been in utilize. However, ISO-8859-one has been obsoleted by two competing standards, the backward compatible Windows-1252, and the slightly altered ISO-8859-15. Both add the Euro sign € and the French œ, but otherwise any confusion of these three grapheme sets does non create mojibake in these languages. Furthermore, it is always rubber to interpret ISO-8859-one as Windows-1252, and fairly safe to interpret it as ISO-8859-xv, in particular with respect to the Euro sign, which replaces the rarely used currency sign (¤). However, with the advent of UTF-eight, mojibake has become more common in certain scenarios, e.grand. substitution of text files betwixt UNIX and Windows computers, due to UTF-eight'southward incompatibility with Latin-1 and Windows-1252. But UTF-8 has the power to be directly recognised past a simple algorithm, so that well written software should exist able to avert mixing UTF-8 upwards with other encodings, so this was almost 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, and then problems when ownership an operating arrangement version were less common. 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 character gets corrupted, e.g. the second letter in "kÃ⁠¤rlek" ( kärlek , "love"). This mode, even though the reader has to judge between å, ä and ö, most all texts remain legible. Finnish text, on the other mitt, does feature repeating vowels in words like hääyö ("wedding nighttime") which can sometimes render text very hard to read (e.1000. hääyö appears equally "hÃ⁠¤Ã⁠¤yÃ⁠¶"). Icelandic and Faroese have ten and 8 possibly misreckoning characters, respectively, which thus can arrive more difficult to guess corrupted characters; Icelandic words like þjóðlöð ("outstanding hospitality") become almost entirely unintelligible when rendered equally "þjóðlöð".

In German, Buchstabensalat ("letter of the alphabet salad") is a common term for this phenomenon, and in Spanish, deformación (literally deformation).

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

An antiquity of UTF-eight misinterpreted equally ISO-8859-1, "Ring meg nÃ¥" (" Ring meg nå "), was seen in an SMS scam raging in Norway in June 2014.^[five]

Examples

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

Central and Eastern European [edit]

Users of Primal and Eastern European languages can also be affected. Because most computers were non continued to any network during the mid- to late-1980s, there were different graphic symbol encodings for every language with diacritical characters (see ISO/IEC 8859 and KOI-8), oft also varying past operating system.

Hungarian [edit]

Hungarian is another affected language, which uses the 26 bones English language characters, plus the accented forms á, é, í, ó, ú, ö, ü (all nowadays in the Latin-1 character set up), plus the two characters ő and ű, which are not in Latin-1. These two characters can exist correctly encoded in Latin-2, Windows-1250 and Unicode. Earlier Unicode became common in e-mail clients, e-mails containing Hungarian text frequently had the letters ő and ű corrupted, sometimes to the signal of unrecognizability. It is common to answer to an e-mail rendered unreadable (see examples beneath) by character mangling (referred to as "betűszemét", meaning "letter garbage") with the phrase "Árvíztűrő tükörfúrógép", a nonsense phrase (literally "Overflowing-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 top-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 Key European CP 852 encoding; however, the operating system, a software or printer used the default CP 437 encoding. Please note that small-example letters are mainly correct, exception with ő (ï) and ű (√). Ü/ü is correct because CP 852 was made uniform with German language. Present occurs mainly on printed prescriptions and cheques.
CWI-2	CP 437	ÅRVìZTÿRº TÜKÖRFùRòGÉP árvíztûrô tükörfúrógép	The CWI-2 encoding was designed so that the text remains fairly well-readable fifty-fifty if the display or printer uses the default CP 437 encoding. This encoding was heavily used in the 1980s and early 1990s, but present information technology is completely deprecated.
Windows-1250	Windows-1252	ÁRVÍZTÛRÕ TÜKÖRFÚRÓGÉP árvíztûrõ tükörfúrógép	The default Western Windows encoding is used instead of the Key-European one. Only ő-Ő (õ-Õ) and ű-Ű (û-Û) are incorrect, just the text is completely readable. This is the most common error present; due to ignorance, it occurs frequently on webpages or even in printed media.
CP 852	Windows-1250	µRVÖZTëRŠ TšYard™RFéRŕG P rvˇztűr‹ t yard"rfŁr˘g‚p	Cardinal European Windows encoding is used instead of DOS encoding. The utilize of ű is correct.
Windows-1250	CP 852	┴RV═ZT█RŇ T▄KÍRF┌RËOne thousand╔P ßrvÝztűr§ tŘk÷rf˙rˇthousandÚp	Central 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=DCGrand=D6RF=DAR=D3One thousand=C9P =E1rv=EDzt=FBr=F5 t=FCgrand=F6rf=FAr=F3yard=E9p	Mainly caused by wrongly configured post servers but may occur in SMS messages on some cell-phones equally well.
UTF-8	Windows-1252	ÁRVÍZTÅ°RŐ TÃœChiliadÖRFÚRÃ"GÉP árvÃztűrÅ' tümörfúrógép	Mainly acquired by wrongly configured web services or webmail clients, which were non tested for international usage (every bit the trouble remains concealed for English texts). In this example the actual (often generated) content is in UTF-eight; withal, it is not configured in the HTML headers, then the rendering engine displays it with the default Western encoding.

Shine [edit]

Prior to the cosmos of ISO 8859-ii in 1987, users of various calculating platforms used their own graphic symbol encodings such as AmigaPL on Amiga, Atari Club on Atari ST and Masovia, IBM CP852, Mazovia and Windows CP1250 on IBM PCs. Polish companies selling early DOS computers created their own mutually-incompatible means to encode Shine 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 figurer sellers had placed them.

The situation began to improve when, afterwards pressure level from academic and user groups, ISO 8859-2 succeeded every bit the "Internet standard" with limited support of the ascendant vendors' software (today largely replaced by Unicode). With the numerous problems acquired by the variety of encodings, fifty-fifty today some users tend to refer to Shine diacritical characters as krzaczki ([kshach-kih], lit. "petty 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 developed KOI encodings ( Kod Obmena Informatsiey , Код Обмена Информацией , which translates to "Lawmaking for Information Exchange"). This began with Cyrillic-simply 7-bit KOI7, based on ASCII but with Latin and some other characters replaced with Cyrillic letters. Then came viii-bit KOI8 encoding that is an ASCII extension which encodes Cyrillic letters merely with loftier-bit prepare octets respective to seven-bit codes from KOI7. It is for this reason that KOI8 text, fifty-fifty Russian, remains partially readable afterwards stripping the eighth flake, which was considered as a major reward in the historic period of 8BITMIME-unaware e-mail systems. For example, words " Школа русского языка " shkola russkogo yazyka , encoded in KOI8 and then passed through the high bit stripping process, end upwards rendered as "[KOLA RUSSKOGO qZYKA". Eventually KOI8 gained unlike flavors for Russian and Bulgarian (KOI8-R), Ukrainian (KOI8-U), Belarusian (KOI8-RU) and even Tajik (KOI8-T).

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

About recently, the Unicode encoding includes code points for practically all the characters of all the globe's languages, including all Cyrillic characters.

Before Unicode, it was necessary to friction match text encoding with a font using the same encoding arrangement. 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 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 majuscule letters (KOI8 and codepage 1251 share the same ASCII region, but KOI8 has upper-case letter 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 years of the Russian sector of the Www, both KOI8 and codepage 1251 were common. As of 2017, i can nevertheless encounter HTML pages in codepage 1251 and, rarely, KOI8 encodings, equally well every bit Unicode. (An estimated 1.seven% of all web pages worldwide – all languages included – are encoded in codepage 1251.^[7]) Though the HTML standard includes the power to specify the encoding for any given web page in its source,^[viii] this is sometimes neglected, forcing the user to switch encodings in the browser manually.

In Bulgarian, mojibake is ofttimes called majmunica ( маймуница ), meaning "monkey'southward [alphabet]". In Serbian, it is chosen đubre ( ђубре ), meaning "trash". Different the one-time USSR, Due south Slavs never used something like KOI8, and Code Page 1251 was the ascendant Cyrillic encoding in that location 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 example:		Кракозябры ( krakozyabry , garbage characters)
File encoding	Setting in browser	Result
MS-DOS 855	ISO 8859-ane	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 Slovene add to the basic Latin alphabet the letters š, đ, č, ć, ž, and their uppercase 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, as well). All of these letters are divers 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 can occur with whatever of these characters, the letters that are not included in Windows-1252 are much more prone to errors. Thus, fifty-fifty nowadays, "šđčćž ŠĐČĆŽ" is oftentimes displayed as "šðèæž ŠÐÈÆŽ", although ð, è, æ, È, Æ are never used in Slavic languages.

When confined to basic ASCII (well-nigh user names, for instance), mutual replacements are: š→s, đ→dj, č→c, ć→c, ž→z (capital letter forms analogously, with Đ→Dj or Đ→DJ depending on word case). All of these replacements innovate ambiguities, so reconstructing the original from such a grade is normally washed manually if required.

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

The bulldoze to differentiate Croatian from Serbian, Bosnian from Croation and Serbian, and now even Montenegrin from the other three creates many problems. There are many different localizations, using different standards and of different quality. There are no common translations for the vast amount of figurer terminology originating in English. In the finish, people use adopted English words ("kompjuter" for "computer", "kompajlirati" for "compile," etc.), and if they are unaccustomed to the translated terms may not empathise what some selection in a card is supposed to do based on the translated phrase. Therefore, people who understand English, likewise as those who are accustomed to English terminology (who are most, because English terminology is also mostly taught in schools because of these problems) regularly choose the original English versions of not-specialist software.

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

Newer versions of English language Windows allow the code folio to be changed (older versions require special English versions with this support), but this setting can be and frequently was incorrectly prepare. For example, Windows 98 and Windows Me can be fix to about not-correct-to-left single-byte code pages including 1250, merely 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 trouble is peculiarly acute in the instance of ArmSCII or ARMSCII, a set of obsolete character encodings for the Armenian alphabet which have been superseded by Unicode standards. ArmSCII is non widely used considering of a lack of support in the reckoner manufacture. For case, Microsoft Windows does not back up information technology.

Asian encodings [edit]

Some other type of mojibake occurs when text is erroneously parsed in a multi-byte encoding, such as one of the encodings for E Asian languages. With this kind of mojibake more than one (typically ii) characters are corrupted at once, due east.g. "k舐lek" ( kärlek ) in Swedish, where " är " is parsed as "舐". Compared to the to a higher place mojibake, this is harder to read, since letters unrelated to the problematic å, ä or ö are missing, and is especially problematic for short words starting with å, ä or ö such as "än" (which becomes "舅"). Since ii letters are combined, the mojibake also seems more random (over 50 variants compared to the normal 3, not counting the rarer capitals). In some rare cases, an entire text string which happens to include a pattern of particular word lengths, such equally the sentence "Bush hid the facts", may be misinterpreted.

Vietnamese [edit]

In Vietnamese, the phenomenon is called chữ ma , loạn mã can occur when computer endeavor to encode diacritic character defined in Windows-1258, TCVN3 or VNI to UTF-8. Chữ ma was common in Vietnam when user was using Windows XP computer or using cheap mobile telephone.

Instance:		Trăm năm trong cõi người ta (Truyện Kiều, Nguyễn Du)
Original encoding	Target encoding	Consequence
Windows-1258	UTF-8	Trăm due northăk trong cõi người ta
TCVN3	UTF-8	Tr¨g north¨m trong câi ngêi ta
VNI (Windows)	UTF-eight	Traêm naêgrand trong coõi ngöôøi ta

Japanese [edit]

In Japanese, the same phenomenon is, every bit mentioned, called mojibake ( 文字化け ). It is a particular trouble in Japan due to the numerous unlike encodings that exist for Japanese text. Alongside Unicode encodings like UTF-eight and UTF-16, there are other standard encodings, such equally Shift-JIS (Windows machines) and EUC-JP (UNIX systems). Mojibake, besides as being encountered by Japanese users, is also ofttimes encountered by non-Japanese when attempting to run software written for the Japanese market.

Chinese [edit]

In Chinese, the same phenomenon is called Luàn mǎ (Pinyin, Simplified Chinese 乱码 , Traditional Chinese 亂碼 , meaning 'chaotic code'), and can occur when computerised text is encoded in i Chinese character encoding only is displayed using the wrong encoding. When this occurs, it is often possible to fix the consequence by switching the character encoding without loss of data. The situation is complicated considering of the existence of several Chinese character encoding systems in utilise, the most common ones being: Unicode, Big5, and Guobiao (with several astern compatible versions), and the possibility of Chinese characters existence encoded using Japanese encoding.

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

Original encoding	Viewed as	Issue	Original text	Note
Big5	GB	?T瓣в变巨肚	三國志曹操傳	Garbled Chinese characters with no hint of original meaning. The red character is not a valid codepoint in GB2312.
Shift-JIS	GB	暥帤壔偗僥僗僩	文字化けテスト	Kana is displayed as characters with the radical 亻, while kanji are other characters. Nigh of them are extremely uncommon and not in practical use in modern Chinese.
EUC-KR	GB	叼力捞钙胶 抛农聪墨	디제이맥스 테크니카	Random common Simplified Chinese characters which in virtually 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 common with rare or blowsy 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 )'southward "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 )'s "喆" missing in Big5, ex-Cathay 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 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 be able to make the correct inference.

Indic text [edit]

A similar effect tin occur in Brahmic or Indic scripts of Southward Asia, used in such Indo-Aryan or Indic languages as Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu), Bengali, Panjabi, Marä thi, and others, even if the character set employed is properly recognized past the application. This is because, in many Indic scripts, the rules past which individual alphabetic character symbols combine to create symbols for syllables may non exist properly understood by a computer missing the appropriate software, even if the glyphs for the individual letter of the alphabet forms are available.

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

The idea of Manifestly Text requires the operating organisation to provide a font to display Unicode codes. This font is different 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 grade for 'r' is a diacritic that normally goes on top of a patently letter. Yet, it is wrong to continue top 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 messages. By dissimilarity, for similar sounds in modern languages which consequence from their specific rules, information technology is not put on elevation, such as the word करणाऱ्या, IAST: karaṇāryā, a stalk form of the common discussion करणारा/री, IAST: karaṇārā/rī, in the Marathi language.^[xi] But information technology happens in near operating systems. This appears to be a mistake 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 wrong shapes.^{[ citation 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 have fabricated gratuitous-to-download fonts.

Burmese [edit]

Due to Western sanctions^[thirteen] 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 as a Unicode font merely was in fact only partially Unicode compliant.^[xv] In the Zawgyi font, some codepoints for Burmese script were implemented as specified in Unicode, but others were not.^[sixteen] The Unicode Consortium refers to this as advertizing hoc font encodings.^[17] With the advent of mobile phones, mobile vendors such as Samsung and Huawei simply replaced the Unicode compliant system fonts with Zawgyi versions.^[fourteen]

Due to these ad hoc encodings, communications between users of Zawgyi and Unicode would render every bit garbled text. To get around this result, content producers would make posts in both Zawgyi and Unicode.^[eighteen] Myanmar government has designated one Oct 2019 as "U-Mean solar day" to officially switch to Unicode.^[13] The full transition is estimated to take two years.^[nineteen]

African languages [edit]

In certain writing systems of Africa, unencoded text is unreadable. Texts that may produce mojibake include those from the Horn of Africa such equally 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 non generally supported. Diverse other writing systems native to West Africa nowadays similar problems, such every bit the N'Ko alphabet, used for Manding languages in Guinea, and the Vai syllabary, used in Liberia.

Arabic [edit]

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

Examples [edit]

File encoding	Setting in browser	Result
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-six	ُ؛؟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 do not have UTF-8 as browser setting, because UTF-viii is hands recognisable, and so if a browser supports UTF-8 it should recognise it automatically, and non try to interpret something else as UTF-8.

Encounter too [edit]

• Lawmaking point
• Replacement character
• Substitute character
• Newline – The conventions for representing the line pause differ between Windows and Unix systems. Though almost software supports both conventions (which is trivial), software that must preserve or display the difference (e.g. version control systems and data comparison tools) can become substantially more than difficult to use if not adhering to one convention.
• Byte order mark – The most in-band way to shop the encoding together with the data – prepend information technology. This is by intention invisible to humans using compliant software, but volition by design be perceived as "garbage characters" to incompliant software (including many interpreters).
• HTML entities – An encoding of special characters in HTML, mostly optional, merely required for certain characters to escape interpretation as markup.

  While failure to employ this transformation is a vulnerability (see cross-site scripting), applying information technology likewise many times results in garbling of these characters. For example, the quotation marking " becomes ", ", " and and so on.

• Bush hid the facts

References [edit]

1. ^ ^{a b} King, Ritchie (2012). "Will unicode presently be the universal lawmaking? [The Data]". IEEE Spectrum. 49 (vii): 60. doi:10.1109/MSPEC.2012.6221090.
2. ^ WINDISCHMANN, Stephan (31 March 2004). "ringlet -v linux.ars (Internationalization)". Ars Technica . Retrieved five October 2018.
3. ^ "Guidelines for extended attributes". 2013-05-17. Retrieved 2015-02-xv .
4. ^ "Unicode mailinglist on the Eudora email client". 2001-05-thirteen. Retrieved 2014-xi-01 .
5. ^ "sms-scam". June 18, 2014. Retrieved June 19, 2014.
6. ^ p. 141, Control + Alt + Delete: A Dictionary of Cyberslang, Jonathon Keats, Earth Pequot, 2007, ISBN i-59921-039-8.
7. ^ "Usage of Windows-1251 for websites".
8. ^ "Declaring character encodings in HTML".
9. ^ "Red china GBK (XGB)". Microsoft. Archived from the original on 2002-x-01. Conversion map betwixt Code page 936 and Unicode. Demand 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://marāthi.indiatyping.com/
12. ^ "Content Moved (Windows)". Msdn.microsoft.com. Retrieved 2014-02-05 .
13. ^ ^{a b} "Unicode in, Zawgyi out: Modernity finally catches upwards in Myanmar'southward digital globe". The Japan Times. 27 September 2019. Retrieved 24 December 2019. Oct. 1 is "U-Twenty-four hour period", when Myanmar officially volition adopt the new system.... Microsoft and Apple tree helped other countries standardize years ago, only Western sanctions meant Myanmar lost out.
14. ^ ^{a b} Hotchkiss, Griffin (March 23, 2016). "Battle of the fonts". Frontier Myanmar . Retrieved 24 December 2019. With the release of Windows XP service pack ii, complex scripts were supported, which fabricated it possible for Windows to render a Unicode-compliant Burmese font such as Myanmar1 (released in 2005). ... Myazedi, Fleck, and later Zawgyi, circumscribed the rendering trouble by adding extra lawmaking points that were reserved for Myanmar's indigenous languages. Not only does the re-mapping foreclose hereafter ethnic linguistic communication support, information technology also results in a typing organisation that can be disruptive and inefficient, even for experienced users. ... Huawei and Samsung, the two most pop 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 (vii September 2019). "Unified nether ane font system equally Myanmar prepares to migrate from Zawgyi to Unicode". Ascent Voices . Retrieved 24 Dec 2019. Standard Myanmar Unicode fonts were never mainstreamed different the private and partially Unicode compliant Zawgyi font. ... Unicode volition improve tongue processing
16. ^ "Why Unicode is Needed". Google Code: Zawgyi Project . Retrieved 31 October 2013.
17. ^ "Myanmar Scripts and Languages". Frequently Asked Questions. Unicode Consortium. Retrieved 24 December 2019. "UTF-8" technically does not apply to advert hoc font encodings such every bit Zawgyi.
18. ^ LaGrow, Nick; Pruzan, Miri (September 26, 2019). "Integrating autoconversion: Facebook'south path from Zawgyi to Unicode - Facebook Engineering science". 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 order to better attain their audiences, content producers in Myanmar often post in both Zawgyi and Unicode in a single postal 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 December 2019.

External links [edit]

hillcorgunts.blogspot.com

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

Share this post