Upload A Photo Of Yourself фейсбук проверки

Garbled text as a outcome of wrong character encoding

Mojibake (Japanese: 文字化け; IPA: [mod͡ʑibake]) is the garbled text that is the result of text being decoded using an unintended character encoding.^[1] The consequence is a systematic replacement of symbols with completely unrelated ones, often from a different writing organisation.

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

Failed rendering of glyphs due to either missing fonts or missing glyphs in a font is a dissimilar issue that is non to be dislocated with mojibake. Symptoms of this failed rendering include blocks with the code point displayed in hexadecimal or using the generic replacement graphic symbol. 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 (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 example of non-compliance between these, information technology can exist achieved by manipulating the information itself, or merely relabeling it.

Mojibake is often seen with text information that take been tagged with a wrong encoding; it may not even be tagged at all, only moved betwixt computers with different default encodings. A major source of problem are communication protocols that rely on settings on each computer 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 system families, and partly the legacy encodings' specializations for unlike writing systems of human languages. Whereas Linux distributions mostly switched to UTF-viii in 2004,^[2] Microsoft Windows mostly uses UTF-16, and sometimes uses 8-fleck code pages for text files in different languages.^{[ dubious – discuss ]}

For some writing systems, an example being Japanese, several encodings take historically been employed, causing users to run across 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 same text stored every bit UTF-8 is displayed as "譁�蟄怜喧縺�" if interpreted as Shift JIS. This is further exacerbated if other locales are involved: the same UTF-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 example) as "鏂囧瓧鍖栥亼" if interpreted as being 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 as Shift-JIS encoding	ﾊ	ｸ	ｻ	郾		ｽ	､	ｱ
Bytes interpreted as ISO-8859-1 encoding	Ê	¸	»	ú	²	½	¤	±
Bytes interpreted every bit GBK encoding	矢		机		步		け

Underspecification [edit]

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

The encoding of text files is afflicted by locale setting, which depends on the user's language, brand of operating arrangement and possibly other conditions. Therefore, the assumed encoding is systematically incorrect for files that come from a computer with a different setting, or even from a differently localized software within the aforementioned system. For Unicode, one solution is to utilise a byte order marking, but for source code and other machine readable text, many parsers don't tolerate this. Another is storing the encoding as metadata in the file system. File systems that support extended file attributes tin can shop this equally user.charset.^[3] This also requires support in software that wants to have advantage of it, but does not disturb other software.

While a few encodings are like shooting fish in a barrel to detect, in particular UTF-8, there are many that are hard to distinguish (see 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 along with the documents, or using the HTML certificate's meta tags that are used to substitute for missing HTTP headers if the server cannot be configured to transport the proper HTTP headers; see character encodings in HTML.

Mis-specification [edit]

Mojibake also occurs when the encoding is wrongly specified. This often happens betwixt 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 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 actress dashes), that were not displayed properly in software complying with the ISO standard; this especially affected software running under other operating systems such as Unix.

Human ignorance [edit]

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

• Compatibility tin can exist a deceptive property, equally 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 characterization whatever superset of ASCII they actually utilize as "ASCII". Perchance for simplification, but even in academic literature, the word "ASCII" can be establish used as an example of something not compatible with Unicode, where manifestly "ASCII" is Windows-1252 and "Unicode" is UTF-8.^[1] Note that UTF-eight 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 certain information may exist misleading to the recipient. For example, consider a spider web server serving a static HTML file over HTTP. The grapheme fix may be communicated to the client in any number of 3 ways:

• in the HTTP header. This data tin can exist based on server configuration (for instance, when serving a file off disk) or controlled past 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 declaration. This is the encoding that the writer meant to relieve the particular file in.
• in the file, as a byte gild marker. This is the encoding that the author's editor actually saved it in. Unless an accidental encoding conversion has happened (by opening it in one encoding and saving information technology in another), this will be correct. It is, even so, just available in Unicode encodings such as UTF-eight or UTF-16.

Lack of hardware or software support [edit]

Much older hardware is typically designed to support only i character set and the graphic symbol ready typically cannot be altered. The character table contained within the brandish firmware will be localized to have characters for the country the device is to be sold in, and typically the table differs from country to land. As such, these systems will potentially display mojibake when loading text generated on a system from a different country. Likewise, many early on operating systems exercise not support multiple encoding formats and thus volition end up displaying mojibake if made to brandish non-standard text—early versions of Microsoft Windows and Palm OS for example, are localized on a per-land ground and will only support encoding standards relevant to the state 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 Os is designed to back up is opened.

Resolutions [edit]

Applications using UTF-8 equally a default encoding may achieve a greater degree of interoperability considering of its widespread use and backward compatibility with US-ASCII. UTF-8 also has the ability to be straight recognised by a simple algorithm, so 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 it. Two of the almost mutual applications in which mojibake may occur are web browsers and word processors. Modernistic browsers and word processors often support a wide array of grapheme encodings. Browsers often allow a user to modify their rendering engine's encoding setting on the fly, while give-and-take processors let the user to select the appropriate encoding when opening a file. It may take some trial and error for users to find the correct encoding.

The trouble gets more complicated when it occurs in an application that normally does not support a wide range of character encoding, such as in a not-Unicode computer game. In this example, the user must change the operating system'due south encoding settings to match that of the game. Even so, changing the organization-wide encoding settings can as well cause Mojibake in pre-existing applications. In Windows XP or later, a user also has the option to use Microsoft AppLocale, an awarding that allows the changing of per-awarding locale settings. Fifty-fifty and so, changing the operating system encoding settings is not possible on before operating systems such as Windows 98; to resolve this issue on earlier operating systems, a user would accept to apply third party font rendering applications.

Problems in different writing systems [edit]

English [edit]

Mojibake in English language texts mostly occurs in punctuation, such every bit 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 example, the pound sign "£" will appear as "£" if it was encoded by the sender as UTF-8 only interpreted by the recipient every bit CP1252 or ISO 8859-ane. If iterated using CP1252, this can lead to "£", "£", "ÃÆ'‚£", etc.

Some computers did, in older eras, have vendor-specific encodings which caused mismatch as well 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 case of all messages. IBM mainframes utilize 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 additional characters are typically the ones that become corrupted, making texts only mildly unreadable with mojibake:

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

These are languages for which the ISO-8859-1 character set (also known as Latin 1 or Western) has been in use. However, ISO-8859-1 has been obsoleted by two competing standards, the backward compatible Windows-1252, and the slightly altered ISO-8859-15. Both add together the Euro sign € and the French œ, simply otherwise any confusion of these three character sets does non create mojibake in these languages. Furthermore, it is always rubber to interpret ISO-8859-1 every bit Windows-1252, and fairly safety to translate it as ISO-8859-15, in particular with respect to the Euro sign, which replaces the rarely used currency sign (¤). However, with the appearance of UTF-8, mojibake has go more mutual in certain scenarios, e.thou. exchange of text files between UNIX and Windows computers, due to UTF-8's incompatibility with Latin-1 and Windows-1252. But UTF-8 has the ability to be directly recognised by a elementary algorithm, then that well written software should be able to avoid mixing UTF-8 upwardly with other encodings, and then this was near common when many had software not supporting UTF-8. Most of these languages were supported by MS-DOS default CP437 and other machine default encodings, except ASCII, so problems when buying an operating system version were less mutual. Windows and MS-DOS are not compatible however.

In Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and German, vowels are rarely repeated, and it is normally obvious when one character gets corrupted, east.one thousand. the second alphabetic character in "kÃ⁠¤rlek" ( kärlek , "love"). This manner, even though the reader has to estimate between å, ä and ö, almost all texts remain legible. Finnish text, on the other manus, does feature repeating vowels in words like hääyö ("wedding night") which can sometimes render text very difficult to read (e.g. hääyö appears every bit "hÃ⁠¤Ã⁠¤yÃ⁠¶"). Icelandic and Faroese have ten and eight possibly misreckoning characters, respectively, which thus can make it more than difficult to judge corrupted characters; Icelandic words like þjóðlöð ("outstanding hospitality") go about 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 writer might write "ueber" instead of "über", which is standard practice in German when umlauts are non available. The latter practise seems to exist better 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 advice with other parts of the world. Equally an case, the Norwegian football player Ole Gunnar Solskjær had his proper name spelled "SOLSKJAER" on his back when he played for Manchester United.

An artifact of UTF-eight misinterpreted every bit ISO-8859-1, "Band million nÃ¥" (" Ring meg nå "), was seen in an SMS scam raging in Norway in June 2014.^[5]

Examples

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

Central and Eastern European [edit]

Users of Central and Eastern European languages can also be affected. Because most computers were non connected to whatsoever network during the mid- to late-1980s, in that location were dissimilar grapheme encodings for every language with diacritical characters (run across ISO/IEC 8859 and KOI-8), often also varying past operating organization.

Hungarian [edit]

Hungarian is another affected linguistic communication, which uses the 26 bones English characters, plus the absolute forms á, é, í, ó, ú, ö, ü (all nowadays in the Latin-1 graphic symbol set), plus the two characters ő and ű, which are not in Latin-1. These two characters can be correctly encoded in Latin-two, Windows-1250 and Unicode. Before Unicode became common in e-mail clients, e-mails containing Hungarian text ofttimes had the letters ő and ű corrupted, sometimes to the point of unrecognizability. It is common to respond to an e-postal service rendered unreadable (encounter examples beneath) by grapheme mangling (referred to as "betűszemét", meaning "letter garbage") with the phrase "Árvíztűrő tükörfúrógép", a nonsense phrase (literally "Inundation-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 wrong and do not match the superlative-left example.
CP 852	CP 437	╡RV╓ZTδRè TÜKÖRFΘRαGÉP árvízt√rï tükörfúrógép	This was very common in DOS-era when the text was encoded past the Central European CP 852 encoding; however, the operating system, a software or printer used the default CP 437 encoding. Please annotation that small-instance letters are mainly correct, exception with ő (ï) and ű (√). Ü/ü is correct because CP 852 was made compatible with German. Nowadays occurs mainly on printed prescriptions and cheques.
CWI-2	CP 437	ÅRVìZTÿRº TÜKÖRFùRòGÉP árvíztûrô tükörfúrógép	The CWI-2 encoding was designed so that the text remains adequately well-readable even if the brandish or printer uses the default CP 437 encoding. This encoding was heavily used in the 1980s and early 1990s, simply nowadays it 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 wrong, but the text is completely readable. This is the near common error nowadays; due to ignorance, it occurs often on webpages or even in printed media.
CP 852	Windows-1250	µRVÖZTëRŠ TšGrand™RFéRŕOne thousand P rvˇztűr‹ t k"rfŁr˘g‚p	Central European Windows encoding is used instead of DOS encoding. The use of ű is correct.
Windows-1250	CP 852	┴RV═ZT█RŇ T▄KÍRF┌RË1000╔P ßrvÝztűr§ tŘ1000÷rf˙rˇgrandÚp	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=DCG=D6RF=DAR=D3M=C9P =E1rv=EDzt=FBr=F5 t=FCk=F6rf=FAr=F3chiliad=E9p	Mainly caused by wrongly configured postal service servers only may occur in SMS messages on some prison 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 not tested for international usage (as the problem remains concealed for English texts). In this case the actual (frequently generated) content is in UTF-8; even so, information technology is non configured in the HTML headers, so the rendering engine displays information technology with the default Western encoding.

Polish [edit]

Prior to the creation of ISO 8859-2 in 1987, users of diverse computing platforms used their own character encodings such as AmigaPL on Amiga, Atari Social club 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 means 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 Polish—arbitrarily located without reference to where other calculator sellers had placed them.

The state of affairs began to better when, after pressure from bookish and user groups, ISO 8859-2 succeeded as the "Internet standard" with limited support of the dominant vendors' software (today largely replaced past Unicode). With the numerous bug caused by the diversity of encodings, fifty-fifty today some users tend to refer to Smooth 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 past several systems for encoding Cyrillic.^[vi] The Soviet Union and early on Russia adult KOI encodings ( Kod Obmena Informatsiey , Код Обмена Информацией , which translates to "Code for Information Commutation"). This began with Cyrillic-but 7-bit KOI7, based on ASCII but with Latin and some other characters replaced with Cyrillic letters. Then came 8-fleck KOI8 encoding that is an ASCII extension which encodes Cyrillic messages merely with high-bit set octets corresponding to 7-bit codes from KOI7. Information technology is for this reason that KOI8 text, even Russian, remains partially readable after stripping the 8th bit, 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 then passed through the high scrap stripping process, end up rendered every bit "[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 Belarusan as well as Russian/Bulgarian in MS-DOS. For Microsoft Windows, Code Page 1251 added support for Serbian and other Slavic variants of Cyrillic.

Most recently, the Unicode encoding includes code points for practically all the characters of all the world'southward 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 advent varied depending on the exact combination of text encoding and font encoding. For example, attempting to view non-Unicode Cyrillic text using a font that is 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 generally of capital 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 full general, Cyrillic gibberish is symptomatic of using the incorrect Cyrillic font. During the early years of the Russian sector of the Earth Broad Spider web, both KOI8 and codepage 1251 were common. Equally of 2017, i can notwithstanding run into HTML pages in codepage 1251 and, rarely, KOI8 encodings, likewise as Unicode. (An estimated i.7% 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,^[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 one-time USSR, Due south Slavs never used something like KOI8, and Lawmaking Page 1251 was the dominant Cyrillic encoding there before Unicode. Therefore, these languages experienced fewer encoding incompatibility troubles than Russian. In the 1980s, Bulgarian computers used their own MIK encoding, which is superficially similar to (although incompatible with) CP866.

Case

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

Yugoslav languages [edit]

Croation, 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 upper-case letter counterparts Š, Đ, Č, Ć, Ž (only č/Č, š/Š and ž/Ž in Slovenian; officially, although others are used when needed, mostly in foreign names, as well). All of these letters are divers in Latin-2 and Windows-1250, while but some (š, Š, ž, Ž, Đ) exist in the usual Os-default Windows-1252, and are there because of some other languages.

Although Mojibake can occur with any of these characters, the letters that are non included in Windows-1252 are much more prone to errors. Thus, even 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 (most user names, for instance), common 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 introduce ambiguities, so reconstructing the original from such a grade is unremarkably washed manually if required.

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

The bulldoze to differentiate Croation from Serbian, Bosnian from Croation and Serbian, and at present even Montenegrin from the other three creates many problems. In that location are many different localizations, using unlike standards and of dissimilar quality. There are no mutual translations for the vast amount of computer terminology originating in English. In the end, people use adopted English language words ("kompjuter" for "computer", "kompajlirati" for "compile," etc.), and if they are unaccustomed to the translated terms may not understand what some option in a menu is supposed to practise based on the translated phrase. Therefore, people who understand English language, as well as those who are accustomed to English terminology (who are most, considering English terminology is also mostly taught in schools because of these problems) regularly cull the original English 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 language Windows allow the lawmaking folio to be inverse (older versions require special English versions with this support), but this setting can exist and often was incorrectly fix. For case, Windows 98 and Windows Me can be prepare to almost non-correct-to-left unmarried-byte code pages including 1250, but only at install time.

Caucasian languages [edit]

The writing systems of certain languages of the Caucasus region, including the scripts of Georgian and Armenian, may produce mojibake. This problem is especially astute in the case of ArmSCII or ARMSCII, a gear up 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 computer industry. For example, Microsoft Windows does non support it.

Asian encodings [edit]

Another type of mojibake occurs when text is erroneously parsed in a multi-byte encoding, such as one of the encodings for East Asian languages. With this kind of mojibake more than one (typically ii) characters are corrupted at in one case, e.g. "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 letters unrelated to the problematic å, ä or ö are missing, and is particularly problematic for short words starting with å, ä or ö such every bit "än" (which becomes "舅"). Since 2 letters are combined, the mojibake also seems more than 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 pattern of particular give-and-take lengths, such as the sentence "Bush-league hid the facts", may be misinterpreted.

Vietnamese [edit]

In Vietnamese, the phenomenon is chosen chữ ma , loạn mã can occur when computer endeavour to encode diacritic graphic symbol defined in Windows-1258, TCVN3 or VNI to UTF-8. Chữ ma was common in Vietnam when user was using Windows XP figurer or using cheap mobile phone.

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

Japanese [edit]

In Japanese, the same phenomenon is, as mentioned, called mojibake ( 文字化け ). It is a particular problem in Japan due to the numerous different encodings that exist for Japanese text. Alongside Unicode encodings like UTF-8 and UTF-xvi, at that place are other standard encodings, such as Shift-JIS (Windows machines) and EUC-JP (UNIX systems). Mojibake, as well as being encountered by Japanese users, is as well oftentimes encountered by non-Japanese when attempting to run software written for the Japanese marketplace.

Chinese [edit]

In Chinese, the aforementioned phenomenon is chosen Luàn mǎ (Pinyin, Simplified Chinese 乱码 , Traditional Chinese 亂碼 , significant 'chaotic code'), and can occur when computerised text is encoded in one Chinese character encoding just is displayed using the incorrect encoding. When this occurs, it is often possible to ready the consequence by switching the grapheme encoding without loss of information. The situation is complicated because of the existence of several Chinese character encoding systems in utilize, the most common ones being: Unicode, Big5, and Guobiao (with several astern uniform versions), and the possibility of Chinese characters being encoded using Japanese encoding.

It is piece of cake to place the original encoding when luanma occurs in Guobiao encodings:

Original encoding	Viewed equally	Result	Original text	Note
Big5	GB	?T瓣в变巨肚	三國志曹操傳	Garbled Chinese characters with no hint of original pregnant. The blood-red character is non a valid codepoint in GB2312.
Shift-JIS	GB	暥帤壔偗僥僗僩	文字化けテスト	Kana is displayed as characters with the radical 亻, while kanji are other characters. Most of them are extremely uncommon and not in practical apply in modern Chinese.
EUC-KR	GB	叼力捞钙胶 抛农聪墨	디제이맥스 테크니카	Random mutual Simplified Chinese characters which in nearly 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 blowsy characters that are still used in personal or identify names. Examples of this are Taiwanese politicians Wang Chien-shien (Chinese: 王建煊; pinyin: Wáng Jiànxuān )'s "煊", Yu Shyi-kun (simplified Chinese: 游锡堃; traditional Chinese: 游錫堃; pinyin: Yóu Xíkūn )'south "堃" and vocalizer 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 )'southward "镕" missing in GB2312, copyright symbol "©" missing in GBK.^[9]

Newspapers have dealt with this problem in various means, including using software to combine two existing, similar characters; using a picture of the personality; or simply substituting a homophone for the rare character in the hope that the reader would be able to brand the right inference.

Indic text [edit]

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

1 example of this is the former Wikipedia logo, which attempts to prove the graphic symbol coordinating to "wi" (the first syllable of "Wikipedia") on each of many puzzle pieces. The puzzle piece meant to bear the Devanagari grapheme for "wi" instead used to brandish 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 every bit redesigned equally 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 unlike from OS to OS for Singhala and it makes orthographically incorrect glyphs for some letters (syllables) across all operating systems. For instance, the 'reph', the short form for 'r' is a diacritic that normally goes on pinnacle of a plain letter. However, it is wrong to keep height of some letters like 'ya' or 'la' in specific contexts. For Sanskritic words or names inherited past modern languages, such as कार्य, IAST: kārya, or आर्या, IAST: āryā, information technology is apt to put it on top of these messages. By dissimilarity, for similar sounds in mod languages which upshot from their specific rules, it is not put on superlative, such as the give-and-take करणाऱ्या, IAST: karaṇāryā, a stalk grade of the common word करणारा/री, IAST: karaṇārā/rī, in the Marä thi linguistic communication.^[11] But it happens in almost 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 form both yield wrong shapes.^{[ citation needed ]}

Some Indic and Indic-derived scripts, most notably Lao, were not officially supported by Windows XP until the release of Vista.^[12] Withal, various sites take made free-to-download fonts.

Burmese [edit]

Due to Western sanctions^[thirteen] and the tardily arrival of Burmese language support in computers,^{[fourteen] [15]} much of the early Burmese localization was homegrown without international cooperation. The prevailing means of Burmese support is via the Zawgyi font, a font that was created equally a Unicode font but was in fact simply partially Unicode compliant.^[fifteen] In the Zawgyi font, some codepoints for Burmese script were implemented as specified in Unicode, but others were not.^[16] The Unicode Consortium refers to this every bit ad hoc font encodings.^[17] With the advent of mobile phones, mobile vendors such every bit Samsung and Huawei merely 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 get around this issue, content producers would make posts in both Zawgyi and Unicode.^[18] Myanmar government has designated 1 October 2022 as "U-Twenty-four hour period" to officially switch to Unicode.^[13] The full transition is estimated to accept two years.^[19]

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 as the Ge'ez script in Ethiopia and Eritrea, used for Amharic, Tigre, and other languages, and the Somali language, which employs the Osmanya alphabet. In Southern Africa, the Mwangwego alphabet is used to write languages of Malawi and the Mandombe alphabet was created for the Autonomous Republic of the Congo, but these are not generally supported. Various other writing systems native to West Africa present similar problems, such every bit the Due north'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 exercise not match.

Examples [edit]

File encoding	Setting in browser	Result
Arabic instance:		(Universal Declaration of Man Rights)
Browser rendering:		الإعلان العالمى لحقوق الإنسان
UTF-8	Windows-1252	الإعلان العالمى لحقوق الإنسان
	KOI8-R	О╩©ь╖ы└ь╔ь╧ы└ь╖ы├ ь╖ы└ь╧ь╖ы└ы┘ы┴ ы└ь╜ы┌ы┬ы┌ ь╖ы└ь╔ы├ьЁь╖ы├
	ISO 8859-5	яЛПиЇй�иЅиЙй�иЇй� иЇй�иЙиЇй�й�й� й�ий�й�й� иЇй�иЅй�иГиЇй�
	CP 866	я╗┐╪з┘Д╪е╪╣┘Д╪з┘Ж ╪з┘Д╪╣╪з┘Д┘Е┘Й ┘Д╪н┘В┘И┘В ╪з┘Д╪е┘Ж╪│╪з┘Ж
	ISO 8859-6	ُ؛؟ظ�ع�ظ�ظ�ع�ظ�ع� ظ�ع�ظ�ظ�ع�ع�ع� ع�ظع�ع�ع� ظ�ع�ظ�ع�ظ�ظ�ع�
	ISO 8859-2	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 commodity do not accept UTF-eight every bit browser setting, because UTF-8 is easily recognisable, so if a browser supports UTF-eight it should recognise it automatically, and not try to interpret something else equally UTF-8.

Run into as well [edit]

• Lawmaking point
• Replacement graphic symbol
• Substitute character
• Newline – The conventions for representing the line break differ between Windows and Unix systems. Though most software supports both conventions (which is petty), software that must preserve or display the difference (east.g. version control systems and data comparison tools) tin can go substantially more than difficult to use if non adhering to one convention.
• Byte lodge mark – The most in-ring manner to store the encoding together with the data – prepend it. This is past 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, simply required for sure characters to escape interpretation every bit markup.

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

• Bush hid the facts

References [edit]

1. ^ ^{a b} King, Ritchie (2012). "Volition 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). "coil -v linux.ars (Internationalization)". Ars Technica . Retrieved 5 October 2018.
3. ^ "Guidelines for extended attributes". 2013-05-17. Retrieved 2015-02-xv .
4. ^ "Unicode mailinglist on the Eudora email client". 2001-05-13. Retrieved 2014-11-01 .
5. ^ "sms-scam". June eighteen, 2014. Retrieved June nineteen, 2014.
6. ^ p. 141, Control + Alt + Delete: A Dictionary of Cyberslang, Jonathon Keats, Globe Pequot, 2007, ISBN ane-59921-039-8.
7. ^ "Usage of Windows-1251 for websites".
8. ^ "Declaring grapheme encodings in HTML".
9. ^ "PRC GBK (XGB)". Microsoft. Archived from the original on 2002-x-01. Conversion map between Code page 936 and Unicode. Need manually selecting GB18030 or GBK in browser to view it correctly.
10. ^ Cohen, Noam (June 25, 2007). "Some Errors Defy Fixes: A Typo in Wikipedia's Logo Fractures the Sanskrit". The New York Times . Retrieved July 17, 2009.
11. ^ https://marāthi.indiatyping.com/
12. ^ "Content Moved (Windows)". Msdn.microsoft.com. Retrieved 2014-02-05 .
13. ^ ^{a b} "Unicode in, Zawgyi out: Modernity finally catches up in Myanmar'south digital world". The Nihon Times. 27 September 2019. Retrieved 24 December 2019. October. 1 is "U-Solar day", when Myanmar officially will prefer the new system.... Microsoft and Apple tree helped other countries standardize years ago, 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, complex 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 afterward Zawgyi, circumscribed the rendering problem by adding extra code points that were reserved for Myanmar'southward indigenous languages. Non simply does the re-mapping forbid time to come ethnic linguistic communication support, it also results in a typing organization that tin be confusing and inefficient, fifty-fifty for experienced users. ... Huawei and Samsung, the ii most 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 one font system as Myanmar prepares to migrate from Zawgyi to Unicode". Rise Voices . Retrieved 24 Dec 2019. Standard Myanmar Unicode fonts were never mainstreamed dissimilar the private and partially Unicode compliant Zawgyi font. ... Unicode will improve natural linguistic communication processing
16. ^ "Why Unicode is Needed". Google Code: Zawgyi Project . Retrieved 31 Oct 2013.
17. ^ "Myanmar Scripts and Languages". Frequently Asked Questions. Unicode Consortium. Retrieved 24 Dec 2019. "UTF-eight" technically does non use to advertizement hoc font encodings such as Zawgyi.
18. ^ LaGrow, Nick; Pruzan, Miri (September 26, 2019). "Integrating autoconversion: Facebook's path from Zawgyi to Unicode - Facebook Technology". Facebook Engineering. Facebook. Retrieved 25 December 2019. Information technology makes advice on digital platforms hard, as content written in Unicode appears garbled to Zawgyi users and vice versa. ... In order to improve reach their audiences, content producers in Myanmar oft postal service in both Zawgyi and Unicode in a single post, not to mention English or other languages.
19. ^ Saw Yi Nanda (21 Nov 2019). "Myanmar switch to Unicode to take two years: app developer". The Myanmar Times . Retrieved 24 December 2019.

External links [edit]

brownstuard.blogspot.com

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

Share this post