Try Again Ù…ã˜â´ãšâ©ã™â€ž Øâ­ã˜â°ã™â Ù†Øâ´ã˜â¯ã™â€ Ù†Øâ±ã™â€¦ Øâ§ã™âã˜â²ã˜â§ã˜â±

Garbled text equally a result of incorrect graphic symbol encoding

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

This brandish may include the generic replacement character ("�") in places where the binary representation is considered invalid. A replacement can besides involve multiple sequent symbols, every bit viewed in ane 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 sixteen-bit encodings vs European viii-fleck encodings), or the employ 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 issue that is not to be confused with mojibake. Symptoms of this failed rendering include blocks with the code bespeak displayed in hexadecimal or using the generic replacement character. Importantly, these replacements are valid and are the result of correct fault treatment past the software.

Etymology [edit]

Mojibake means "character transformation" in Japanese. The discussion is composed of 文字 (moji, IPA: [mod͡ʑi]), "graphic symbol" 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 example of not-compliance between these, it can be achieved by manipulating the information itself, or just relabeling it.

Mojibake is frequently seen with text information that accept been tagged with a wrong encoding; it may non fifty-fifty be tagged at all, but moved between computers with different default encodings. A major source of trouble are advice protocols that rely on settings on each computer rather than sending or storing metadata together with the information.

The differing default settings between computers are in part due to differing deployments of Unicode amongst operating system families, and partly the legacy encodings' specializations for different writing systems of human languages. Whereas Linux distributions more often than not switched to UTF-8 in 2004,^[2] Microsoft Windows generally uses UTF-16, and sometimes uses 8-fleck code pages for text files in different languages.^{[ dubious – talk over ]}

For some writing systems, an example existence Japanese, several encodings have historically been employed, causing users to see mojibake relatively often. As a Japanese case, the word mojibake "文字化け" stored every bit EUC-JP might be incorrectly displayed as "ﾊｸｻ�ｽ､ｱ", "ﾊｸｻ嵂ｽ､ｱ" (MS-932), or "ﾊｸｻ郾ｽ､ｱ" (Shift JIS-2004). The aforementioned 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 same UTF-viii text appears as "文字化ã'" in software that assumes text to be in the Windows-1252 or ISO-8859-1 encodings, usually labelled Western, or (for example) as "鏂囧瓧鍖栥亼" if interpreted as existence in a GBK (Mainland Communist 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 as Shift-JIS encoding	ﾊ	ｸ	ｻ	郾		ｽ	､	ｱ
Bytes interpreted every bit ISO-8859-1 encoding	Ê	¸	»	ú	²	½	¤	±
Bytes interpreted every bit GBK encoding	矢		机		步		け

Underspecification [edit]

If the encoding is non specified, it is up to the software to make up one's mind information technology by other means. Depending on the type of software, the typical solution is either configuration or charset detection heuristics. Both are prone to mis-prediction in not-so-uncommon scenarios.

The encoding of text files is affected by locale setting, which depends on the user'south language, brand of operating system and maybe other atmospheric condition. Therefore, the assumed encoding is systematically wrong for files that come from a estimator with a different setting, or even from a differently localized software inside the same system. For Unicode, one solution is to use a byte order mark, simply for source code and other machine readable text, many parsers don't tolerate this. Another is storing the encoding as metadata in the file organisation. File systems that back up extended file attributes can shop this as user.charset.^[3] This likewise requires support in software that wants to take advantage of it, just does not disturb other software.

While a few encodings are like shooting fish in a barrel to detect, in particular UTF-8, in that location are many that are hard to distinguish (encounter charset detection). A web browser may non be able to distinguish a page coded in EUC-JP and another in Shift-JIS if the coding scheme is not assigned explicitly using HTTP headers sent along with the documents, or using the HTML 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; encounter graphic symbol encodings in HTML.

Mis-specification [edit]

Mojibake also occurs when the encoding is wrongly specified. This often happens between encodings that are similar. For case, the Eudora electronic mail client for Windows was known to ship emails labelled equally ISO-8859-1 that were in reality Windows-1252.^[iv] The Mac OS version of Eudora did not exhibit this behaviour. Windows-1252 contains extra printable characters in the C1 range (the most often seen being curved quotation marks and extra dashes), that were non displayed properly in software complying with the ISO standard; this peculiarly affected software running nether other operating systems such as Unix.

Man ignorance [edit]

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

• Compatibility tin can be a deceptive holding, as the mutual subset of characters is unaffected past a mixup of two encodings (see Problems in dissimilar writing systems).
• People think they are using ASCII, and tend to label any superset of ASCII they actually utilise as "ASCII". Perhaps for simplification, but fifty-fifty in academic literature, the word "ASCII" tin can exist found used as an example of something not uniform with Unicode, where evidently "ASCII" is Windows-1252 and "Unicode" is UTF-8.^[1] Annotation 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 unlike information, the least certain data may be misleading to the recipient. For case, consider a web server serving a static HTML file over HTTP. The character set may be communicated to the client in any number of 3 ways:

• in the HTTP header. This information tin can be based on server configuration (for instance, when serving a file off deejay) or controlled past the application 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 relieve the particular file in.
• in the file, as a byte order mark. This is the encoding that the writer's editor actually saved it in. Unless an adventitious encoding conversion has happened (past opening it in one encoding and saving it in another), this will be 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 only one grapheme gear up and the grapheme set typically cannot be contradistinct. The character table contained within the display firmware volition be localized to have characters for the country the device is to be sold in, and typically the table differs from state to country. As such, these systems will potentially brandish mojibake when loading text generated on a organisation from a different land. As well, many early operating systems do not support multiple encoding formats and thus will cease up displaying mojibake if made to brandish not-standard text—early versions of Microsoft Windows and Palm Bone for example, are localized on a per-country basis and will simply back up encoding standards relevant to the country the localized version will be sold in, and will display mojibake if a file containing a text in a different encoding format from the version that the Bone 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 because of its widespread use and astern compatibility with Us-ASCII. UTF-viii also has the power to exist straight recognised by a unproblematic algorithm, so that well written software should be able to avoid mixing UTF-8 up with other encodings.

The difficulty of resolving an case of mojibake varies depending on the awarding within which it occurs and the causes of information technology. Two of the most common applications in which mojibake may occur are web browsers and give-and-take processors. Modern browsers and discussion processors often support a wide array of character encodings. Browsers frequently allow a user to change their rendering engine's encoding setting on the fly, while word processors allow the user to select the advisable encoding when opening a file. It may take some trial and error for users to find the correct encoding.

The trouble gets more complicated when it occurs in an awarding that normally does non support a wide range of character encoding, such as in a not-Unicode computer game. In this case, the user must change the operating system'south encoding settings to friction match that of the game. Nevertheless, changing the organisation-wide encoding settings tin too cause Mojibake in pre-existing applications. In Windows XP or later, a user also has the selection to use Microsoft AppLocale, an application that allows the changing of per-application locale settings. Fifty-fifty and then, changing the operating organisation encoding settings is not possible on before operating systems such as Windows 98; to resolve this issue on earlier operating systems, a user would have to utilize third party font rendering applications.

Problems in unlike writing systems [edit]

English [edit]

Mojibake in English texts generally occurs in punctuation, such as em dashes (—), en dashes (–), and curly quotes (",",','), merely rarely in character 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 tin 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 example compared to standard ASCII. PETSCII printers worked fine on other computers of the era, merely flipped the instance of all letters. IBM mainframes apply the EBCDIC encoding which does not match ASCII at all.

Other Western European languages [edit]

The alphabets of the North Germanic languages, Catalan, Finnish, German, French, Portuguese and Spanish are all extensions of the Latin alphabet. The boosted characters are typically the ones that get corrupted, making texts only mildly unreadable with mojibake:

• å, ä, ö in Finnish and Swedish
• à, ç, è, é, ï, í, ò, ó, ú, ü in Catalan
• æ, ø, å in Norwegian and Danish
• á, é, ó, ij, è, ë, ï in Dutch
• ä, ö, ü, and ß in German
• á, ð, í, ó, ú, ý, æ, ø in Faroese
• á, ð, é, í, ó, ú, ý, þ, æ, ö in Icelandic
• à, â, ç, è, é, ë, ê, ï, î, ô, ù, û, ü, ÿ, æ, œ in French
• à, è, é, ì, ò, ù in Italian
• á, é, í, ñ, ó, ú, ü, ¡, ¿ in 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 applicable.

These are languages for which the ISO-8859-one character set (likewise known equally Latin one or Western) has been in employ. All the same, ISO-8859-one has been obsoleted by two competing standards, the backward compatible Windows-1252, and the slightly contradistinct ISO-8859-15. Both add together the Euro sign € and the French œ, but otherwise whatever defoliation of these three grapheme sets does not create mojibake in these languages. Furthermore, it is e'er safe to interpret ISO-8859-one as Windows-1252, and fairly safe to interpret information technology 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-8, mojibake has go more than common in certain scenarios, eastward.g. exchange of text files between UNIX and Windows computers, due to UTF-8's incompatibility with Latin-one and Windows-1252. But UTF-8 has the ability to be directly recognised past a unproblematic algorithm, so that well written software should be able to avoid mixing UTF-viii up with other encodings, so this was nigh common when many had software not supporting UTF-viii. Nearly of these languages were supported by MS-DOS default CP437 and other machine default encodings, except ASCII, so issues when ownership an operating organization version were less common. Windows and MS-DOS are non compatible however.

In Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and German, vowels are rarely repeated, and information technology is usually obvious when one grapheme gets corrupted, e.g. the second letter in "kÃ⁠¤rlek" ( kärlek , "honey"). This mode, even though the reader has to approximate between å, ä and ö, almost all texts remain legible. Finnish text, on the other hand, does feature repeating vowels in words like hääyö ("hymeneals dark") which can sometimes return text very hard to read (e.k. hääyö appears as "hÃ⁠¤Ã⁠¤yÃ⁠¶"). Icelandic and Faroese take ten and eight possibly confounding characters, respectively, which thus tin make information technology more difficult to guess corrupted characters; Icelandic words like þjóðlöð ("outstanding hospitality") get well-nigh entirely unintelligible when rendered as "þjóðlöð".

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

Some users transliterate their writing when using a figurer, 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 exercise seems to be amend tolerated in the German language sphere than in the Nordic countries. For example, in Norwegian, digraphs are associated with archaic Danish, and may be used jokingly. However, digraphs are useful in communication with other parts of the globe. Every bit an example, the Norwegian football thespian Ole Gunnar Solskjær had his proper noun spelled "SOLSKJAER" on his dorsum when he played for Manchester United.

An artifact of UTF-8 misinterpreted as ISO-8859-1, "Ring meg nÃ¥" (" Band 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	Result
MS-DOS 437	ISO 8859-i	Sm"rg†s
ISO 8859-1	Mac Roman	SmˆrgÂs
UTF-8	ISO 8859-i	Smörgåsouthward
UTF-viii	Mac Roman	Smörgåsouth

Central and Eastern European [edit]

Users of Primal and Eastern European languages can also exist affected. Because most computers were not continued to whatever network during the mid- to late-1980s, there were different graphic symbol encodings for every linguistic communication with diacritical characters (come across 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 characters, plus the absolute forms á, é, í, ó, ú, ö, ü (all nowadays in the Latin-1 character set), plus the ii characters ő and ű, which are not in Latin-1. These two characters tin be correctly encoded in Latin-2, Windows-1250 and Unicode. Before Unicode became mutual in e-mail clients, e-mails containing Hungarian text ofttimes had the messages ő and ű corrupted, sometimes to the point of unrecognizability. It is common to answer to an e-mail rendered unreadable (see examples below) by character mangling (referred to as "betűszemét", significant "letter garbage") with the phrase "Árvíztűrő tükörfúrógép", a nonsense phrase (literally "Overflowing-resistant mirror-drilling automobile") 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 friction 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 Central European CP 852 encoding; however, the operating arrangement, a software or printer used the default CP 437 encoding. Please annotation that small-example messages are mainly correct, exception with ő (ï) and ű (√). Ü/ü is correct because CP 852 was fabricated compatible with German. Nowadays occurs mainly on printed prescriptions and cheques.
CWI-2	CP 437	ÅRVìZTÿRº TÜKÖRFùRòGÉP árvíztûrô tükörfúrógép	The CWI-2 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, only nowadays it is completely deprecated.
Windows-1250	Windows-1252	ÁRVÍZTÛRÕ TÜKÖRFÚRÓGÉP árvíztûrõ tükörfúrógép	The default Western Windows encoding is used instead of the Primal-European one. Just ő-Ő (õ-Õ) and ű-Ű (û-Û) are incorrect, but the text is completely readable. This is the most common error present; due to ignorance, it occurs often on webpages or even in printed media.
CP 852	Windows-1250	µRVÖZTëRŠ Tš1000™RFéRŕThou P rvˇztűr‹ t k"rfŁr˘m‚p	Central European Windows encoding is used instead of DOS encoding. The apply of ű is correct.
Windows-1250	CP 852	┴RV═ZT█RŇ T▄ChiliadÍRF┌RËG╔P ßrvÝztűr§ tŘk÷rf˙rˇgÚp	Primal European DOS encoding is used instead of Windows encoding. The apply of ű is correct.
Quoted-printable	7-bit ASCII	=C1RV=CDZT=DBR=D5 T=DCK=D6RF=DAR=D3G=C9P =E1rv=EDzt=FBr=F5 t=FCk=F6rf=FAr=F3chiliad=E9p	Mainly acquired by wrongly configured mail service servers but may occur in SMS messages on some cell-phones also.
UTF-eight	Windows-1252	ÁRVÍZTÅ°RŐ TÃœYardÖRFÚRÃ"GÉP árvÃztűrÅ' tükörfúróone thousandép	Mainly caused by wrongly configured web services or webmail clients, which were non tested for international usage (as the problem remains curtained for English texts). In this case the actual (ofttimes generated) content is in UTF-8; nonetheless, it is not configured in the HTML headers, and then the rendering engine displays it with the default Western encoding.

Polish [edit]

Prior to the cosmos of ISO 8859-2 in 1987, users of diverse computing platforms used their own grapheme encodings such as AmigaPL on Amiga, Atari Society on Atari ST and Masovia, IBM CP852, Mazovia and Windows CP1250 on IBM PCs. Polish companies selling early on DOS computers created their own mutually-incompatible ways to encode Polish characters and but 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 8859-2 succeeded equally the "Internet standard" with limited support of the dominant vendors' software (today largely replaced past Unicode). With the numerous bug caused past the diverseness of encodings, even 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.^[six] The Soviet Union and early on Russian Federation developed KOI encodings ( Kod Obmena Informatsiey , Код Обмена Информацией , which translates to "Code for Information Exchange"). This began with Cyrillic-only 7-bit KOI7, based on ASCII simply with Latin and some other characters replaced with Cyrillic messages. Then came 8-scrap KOI8 encoding that is an ASCII extension which encodes Cyrillic letters only with high-scrap gear up octets corresponding to 7-bit codes from KOI7. Information technology is for this reason that KOI8 text, even Russian, remains partially readable later on stripping the eighth bit, which was considered equally a major advantage in the age of 8BITMIME-unaware email systems. For example, words " Школа русского языка " shkola russkogo yazyka , encoded in KOI8 and and so passed through the high chip stripping process, end up rendered every bit "[KOLA RUSSKOGO qZYKA". Eventually KOI8 gained different flavors for Russian and Bulgarian (KOI8-R), Ukrainian (KOI8-U), Belarusian (KOI8-RU) and fifty-fifty Tajik (KOI8-T).

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

Most recently, the Unicode encoding includes code 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 practise this produced unreadable gibberish whose specific advent varied depending on the verbal 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 capital letters (KOI8 and codepage 1251 share the aforementioned 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 wrong Cyrillic font. During the early on years of the Russian sector of the World wide web, both KOI8 and codepage 1251 were common. As of 2017, 1 can however see HTML pages in codepage 1251 and, rarely, KOI8 encodings, as well equally Unicode. (An estimated one.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 oft called majmunica ( маймуница ), meaning "monkey'south [alphabet]". In Serbian, it is called đubre ( ђубре ), significant "trash". Unlike the erstwhile USSR, Due south Slavs never used something like KOI8, and Code Page 1251 was the dominant Cyrillic encoding there before Unicode. Therefore, these languages experienced fewer encoding incompatibility troubles than Russian. In the 1980s, Bulgarian computers used their own MIK encoding, which is superficially similar 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 8859-1	ëÒÁËÏÚÑÂÒÙ
UTF-viii	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 bones Latin alphabet the letters š, đ, č, ć, ž, and their upper-case letter counterparts Š, Đ, Č, Ć, Ž (only č/Č, š/Š and ž/Ž in Slovene; officially, although others are used when needed, mostly in foreign names, equally well). All of these messages are divers in Latin-2 and Windows-1250, while but some (š, Š, ž, Ž, Đ) exist in the usual Bone-default Windows-1252, and are there because of some other languages.

Although Mojibake tin occur with whatsoever of these characters, the letters that are not included in Windows-1252 are much more than prone to errors. Thus, even present, "šđčćž ŠĐČĆŽ" is often displayed as "šðèæž ŠÐÈÆŽ", although ð, è, æ, È, Æ are never used in Slavic languages.

When confined to basic ASCII (most user names, for example), common replacements are: š→due south, 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 class is unremarkably done manually if required.

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

The drive to differentiate Croation from Serbian, Bosnian from Croation and Serbian, and now even Montenegrin from the other 3 creates many problems. At that place are many different localizations, using different standards and of different quality. In that location are no common translations for the vast amount of figurer terminology originating in English language. In the end, people use adopted English language words ("kompjuter" for "figurer", "kompajlirati" for "compile," etc.), and if they are unaccustomed to the translated terms may not understand what some choice in a menu is supposed to do based on the translated phrase. Therefore, people who empathise English, as well as those who are accustomed to English terminology (who are most, because English terminology is as well mostly taught in schools considering of these problems) 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 allow the code folio to be changed (older versions require special English versions with this support), just this setting tin can exist and often was incorrectly prepare. For example, Windows 98 and Windows Me can exist set to most non-right-to-left single-byte code pages including 1250, but merely 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 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 considering of a lack of support in the computer industry. For example, Microsoft Windows does non back up information technology.

Asian encodings [edit]

Another type of mojibake occurs when text is erroneously parsed in a multi-byte encoding, such as one of the encodings for East Asian languages. With this kind of mojibake more than one (typically two) characters are corrupted at once, e.yard. "k舐lek" ( kärlek ) in Swedish, where " är " is parsed as "舐". Compared to the in a higher place 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 ii letters are combined, the mojibake likewise seems more random (over fifty variants compared to the normal three, not counting the rarer capitals). In some rare cases, an entire text string which happens to include a blueprint of particular give-and-take lengths, such as the sentence "Bush hid the facts", may be misinterpreted.

Vietnamese [edit]

In Vietnamese, the phenomenon is called chữ ma , loạn mã can occur when the figurer is trying to encode diacritic character divers 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 phone.

Vietnamese example:		Trăm năm trong cõi người ta (Truyện Kiều, Nguyễn Du)
Original encoding	Target encoding	Result
Windows-1258	UTF-8	Trăm năone thousand trong cõi người ta
TCVN3	UTF-8	Tr¨grand n¨thousand trong câi ng­êi ta
VNI (Windows)	UTF-8	Traêm naêm trong coõi ngöôøi ta

Japanese [edit]

In Japanese, the same miracle is, equally mentioned, called mojibake ( 文字化け ). It is a particular problem in Nihon due to the numerous different encodings that exist for Japanese text. Alongside Unicode encodings like UTF-eight and UTF-16, at that place are other standard encodings, such as Shift-JIS (Windows machines) and EUC-JP (UNIX systems). Mojibake, equally well equally existence encountered by Japanese users, is besides frequently encountered by non-Japanese when attempting to run software written for the Japanese marketplace.

Chinese [edit]

In Chinese, the aforementioned 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 one Chinese grapheme encoding but is displayed using the wrong encoding. When this occurs, it is often possible to gear up the issue by switching the character encoding without loss of information. The state of affairs is complicated because of the existence of several Chinese character encoding systems in use, the most common ones being: Unicode, Big5, and Guobiao (with several backward compatible versions), and the possibility of Chinese characters being encoded using Japanese encoding.

Information technology is like shooting fish in a barrel to place 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 carmine 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 as characters with the radical 亻, while kanji are other characters. Well-nigh of them are extremely uncommon and not in practical use in mod Chinese.
EUC-KR	GB	叼力捞钙胶 抛农聪墨	디제이맥스 테크니카	Random common Simplified Chinese characters which in well-nigh cases make no sense. Easily identifiable because of spaces between every several characters.

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

Newspapers take dealt with this problem in various ways, including using software to combine two existing, similar characters; using a motion-picture show of the personality; or just substituting a homophone for the rare grapheme in the hope that the reader would exist able to make the correct inference.

Indic text [edit]

A similar consequence can occur in Brahmic or Indic scripts of South asia, used in such Indo-Aryan or Indic languages as Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu), Bengali, Panjabi, Marathi, and others, even if the character set up employed is properly recognized past the application. This is because, in many Indic scripts, the rules by which individual letter symbols combine to create symbols for syllables may not be properly understood past a computer missing the advisable software, even if the glyphs for the individual letter forms are available.

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

The thought of Plain Text requires the operating system 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 ordinarily goes on height of a patently letter. However, it is wrong to go on top of some messages similar 'ya' or 'la' in specific contexts. For Sanskritic words or names inherited by modern languages, such equally कार्य, IAST: kārya, or आर्या, IAST: āryā, information technology is apt to put it on top of these messages. Past contrast, for similar sounds in modern languages which result from their specific rules, it is non put on tiptop, such as the give-and-take करणाऱ्या, IAST: karaṇāryā, a stalk form of the common word करणारा/री, IAST: karaṇārā/rī, in the Marathi language.^[11] Merely it happens in most operating systems. This appears to be a fault of internal programming of the fonts. In Mac OS and iOS, the muurdhaja l (dark 50) and 'u' combination and its long grade both yield wrong shapes.^{[ commendation needed ]}

Some Indic and Indic-derived scripts, nigh notably Lao, were non officially supported past Windows XP until the release of Vista.^[12] Yet, various sites have made free-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 back up is via the Zawgyi font, a font that was created as a Unicode font simply was in fact only partially Unicode compliant.^[fifteen] In the Zawgyi font, some codepoints for Burmese script were implemented as specified in Unicode, only others were not.^[xvi] The Unicode Consortium refers to this every bit ad hoc font encodings.^[17] With the advent of mobile phones, mobile vendors such as Samsung and Huawei simply replaced the Unicode compliant system fonts with Zawgyi versions.^[14]

Due to these advert hoc encodings, communications betwixt users of Zawgyi and Unicode would render as garbled text. To get around this effect, content producers would brand posts in both Zawgyi and Unicode.^[18] Myanmar regime has designated one October 2019 as "U-Mean solar day" to officially switch to Unicode.^[thirteen] The full transition is estimated to accept two years.^[nineteen]

African languages [edit]

In sure 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 Republic of malaŵi and the Mandombe alphabet was created for the Democratic republic of the congo, but these are not mostly supported. Various other writing systems native to West Africa nowadays like problems, such every bit the N'Ko alphabet, used for Manding languages in Republic of guinea, and the Vai syllabary, used in Liberia.

Arabic [edit]

Some other afflicted linguistic communication is Arabic (see beneath). The text becomes unreadable when the encodings exercise non lucifer.

Examples [edit]

File encoding	Setting in browser	Result
Arabic example:		(Universal Announcement 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-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 non have UTF-8 as browser setting, considering UTF-eight is easily recognisable, so if a browser supports UTF-viii it should recognise information technology automatically, and not try to interpret something else equally UTF-8.

Run across also [edit]

• Lawmaking signal
• 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 fiddling), software that must preserve or brandish the difference (e.chiliad. version command systems and data comparison tools) tin can get substantially more than difficult to apply if not adhering to one convention.
• Byte society mark – The most in-ring way to store the encoding together with the data – prepend it. This is by intention invisible to humans using compliant software, simply will by pattern 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 every bit markup.

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

• Bush hid the facts

References [edit]

1. ^ ^{a b} King, Ritchie (2012). "Will unicode soon be the universal code? [The Data]". IEEE Spectrum. 49 (vii): sixty. doi:10.1109/MSPEC.2012.6221090.
2. ^ WINDISCHMANN, Stephan (31 March 2004). "scroll -v linux.ars (Internationalization)". Ars Technica . Retrieved 5 Oct 2018.
3. ^ "Guidelines for extended attributes". 2013-05-17. Retrieved 2015-02-15 .
4. ^ "Unicode mailinglist on the Eudora email client". 2001-05-13. Retrieved 2014-11-01 .
5. ^ "sms-scam". June 18, 2014. Retrieved June 19, 2014.
6. ^ p. 141, Control + Alt + Delete: A Dictionary of Cyberslang, Jonathon Keats, Globe Pequot, 2007, ISBN 1-59921-039-8.
7. ^ "Usage of Windows-1251 for websites".
8. ^ "Declaring character encodings in HTML".
9. ^ "Mainland china GBK (XGB)". Microsoft. Archived from the original on 2002-10-01. Conversion map between Lawmaking page 936 and Unicode. Demand manually selecting GB18030 or GBK in browser to view information technology correctly.
10. ^ Cohen, Noam (June 25, 2007). "Some Errors Defy Fixes: A Typo in Wikipedia'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 globe". The Japan Times. 27 September 2019. Retrieved 24 December 2019. Oct. ane is "U-Twenty-four hours", when Myanmar officially will 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). "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 as Myanmar1 (released in 2005). ... Myazedi, BIT, and afterward Zawgyi, confining the rendering problem by adding extra code points that were reserved for Myanmar'due south indigenous languages. Not only does the re-mapping prevent time to come ethnic language support, it also results in a typing system that can be confusing and inefficient, even for experienced users. ... Huawei and Samsung, the two nigh popular smartphone brands in Myanmar, are motivated just 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 1 font organisation equally Myanmar prepares to migrate from Zawgyi to Unicode". Rising Voices . Retrieved 24 December 2019. Standard Myanmar Unicode fonts were never mainstreamed unlike the private and partially Unicode compliant Zawgyi font. ... Unicode will ameliorate tongue processing
16. ^ "Why Unicode is Needed". Google Code: Zawgyi Projection . Retrieved 31 Oct 2013.
17. ^ "Myanmar Scripts and Languages". Frequently Asked Questions. Unicode Consortium. Retrieved 24 December 2019. "UTF-8" technically does not apply to ad hoc font encodings such as Zawgyi.
18. ^ LaGrow, Nick; Pruzan, Miri (September 26, 2019). "Integrating autoconversion: Facebook'southward path from Zawgyi to Unicode - Facebook Engineering". Facebook Engineering. Facebook. Retrieved 25 December 2019. It makes advice on digital platforms hard, as content written in Unicode appears garbled to Zawgyi users and vice versa. ... In guild to better reach their audiences, content producers in Myanmar ofttimes mail in both Zawgyi and Unicode in a unmarried post, non to mention English or other languages.
19. ^ Saw Yi Nanda (21 November 2019). "Myanmar switch to Unicode to accept two years: app developer". The Myanmar Times . Retrieved 24 December 2019.

External links [edit]

chowdhuryextrave1970.blogspot.com

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

Share this post