I Know I Never Love Again Ãâ³ãâ¾ã‘€ã‘â㑇ãâ¸ã⹠Ñë†ãâ¾ãâºãâ¾ãâ»ãâ°ãâ´
Mojibake (Japanese: 文字化け; IPA: [mod͡ʑibake]) is the garbled text that is the issue 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 organisation.
This brandish may include the generic replacement character ("�") in places where the binary representation is considered invalid. A replacement can besides involve multiple consecutive symbols, equally viewed in ane encoding, when the same binary code constitutes one symbol in the other encoding. This is either because of differing abiding length encoding (as in Asian 16-scrap encodings vs European 8-fleck encodings), or the use of variable length encodings (notably UTF-8 and UTF-16).
Failed rendering of glyphs due to either missing fonts or missing glyphs in a font is a unlike issue that is not to be confused with mojibake. Symptoms of this failed rendering include blocks with the code point displayed in hexadecimal or using the generic replacement grapheme. 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]), "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 instance of non-compliance between these, information technology tin can exist achieved by manipulating the data itself, or but relabeling it.
Mojibake is frequently seen with text data that have been tagged with a wrong encoding; it may not even exist tagged at all, but moved between computers with different default encodings. A major source of trouble are communication protocols that rely on settings on each computer rather than sending or storing metadata together with the information.
The differing default settings betwixt 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 generally switched to UTF-8 in 2004,[2] Microsoft Windows generally uses UTF-sixteen, and sometimes uses 8-chip code pages for text files in dissimilar languages.[ dubious ]
For some writing systems, an instance being Japanese, several encodings have 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 aforementioned text stored equally 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 aforementioned UTF-8 text appears as "æ–‡å—化ã'" in software that assumes text to be in the Windows-1252 or ISO-8859-1 encodings, usually labelled Western, or (for example) every bit "鏂囧瓧鍖栥亼" if interpreted every bit beingness in a GBK (Mainland China) locale.
| 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 equally ISO-8859-ane encoding | Ê | ¸ | » | ú | ² | ½ | ¤ | ± |
| Bytes interpreted as GBK encoding | 矢 | 机 | 步 | け | ||||
Underspecification [edit]
If the encoding is not specified, information technology is upward to the software to decide information technology by other means. Depending on the type of software, the typical solution is either configuration or charset detection heuristics. Both are decumbent to mis-prediction in non-so-uncommon scenarios.
The encoding of text files is afflicted by locale setting, which depends on the user's linguistic communication, brand of operating system and possibly other conditions. Therefore, the causeless encoding is systematically incorrect for files that come from a computer with a dissimilar setting, or even from a differently localized software inside the same arrangement. For Unicode, one solution is to use a byte social club mark, but for source code and other machine readable text, many parsers don't tolerate this. Some other is storing the encoding as metadata in the file system. File systems that support extended file attributes can store this as user.charset.[3] This also requires support in software that wants to take advantage of it, but does not disturb other software.
While a few encodings are easy to find, in item UTF-8, in that location are many that are difficult to distinguish (see charset detection). A web browser may non be able to distinguish a folio coded in EUC-JP and some other in Shift-JIS if the coding scheme is not assigned explicitly using HTTP headers sent forth with the documents, or using the HTML certificate'due south meta tags that are used to substitute for missing HTTP headers if the server cannot be configured to send the proper HTTP headers; see character encodings in HTML.
Mis-specification [edit]
Mojibake also occurs when the encoding is wrongly specified. This oftentimes happens between encodings that are similar. For example, the Eudora email client for Windows was known to ship emails labelled as ISO-8859-1 that were in reality Windows-1252.[four] The Mac Bone version of Eudora did non exhibit this behaviour. Windows-1252 contains actress printable characters in the C1 range (the nearly often seen being curved quotation marks and extra dashes), that were not displayed properly in software complying with the ISO standard; this especially affected software running under other operating systems such as Unix.
Human ignorance [edit]
Of the encodings still in apply, many are partially compatible with each other, with ASCII as the predominant mutual subset. This sets the stage for man ignorance:
- Compatibility tin be a deceptive property, as the common subset of characters is unaffected by a mixup of two encodings (see Problems in different writing systems).
- People think they are using ASCII, and tend to characterization whatever superset of ASCII they actually use as "ASCII". Perchance for simplification, only even in academic literature, the discussion "ASCII" can be plant used as an example of something not compatible with Unicode, where evidently "ASCII" is Windows-1252 and "Unicode" is UTF-8.[1] Annotation that UTF-eight is backwards uniform with ASCII.
Overspecification [edit]
When in that location are layers of protocols, each trying to specify the encoding based on different information, the least certain data may be misleading to the recipient. For instance, consider a web server serving a static HTML file over HTTP. The graphic symbol set may exist communicated to the client in any number of three ways:
- in the HTTP header. This information can be based on server configuration (for instance, when serving a file off disk) or controlled by the application running on the server (for dynamic websites).
- in the file, as an HTML meta tag (
http-equivorcharset) or theencodingaspect of an XML declaration. This is the encoding that the author meant to relieve the detail file in. - in the file, as a byte gild mark. This is the encoding that the author's editor really saved it in. Unless an accidental encoding conversion has happened (by opening it in one encoding and saving it in another), this will be correct. It is, still, only available in Unicode encodings such as UTF-8 or UTF-xvi.
Lack of hardware or software support [edit]
Much older hardware is typically designed to back up only i character set and the character set typically cannot exist altered. The character table independent within the display firmware will be localized to have characters for the country the device is to be sold in, and typically the table differs from state to state. As such, these systems will potentially display mojibake when loading text generated on a system from a different land. Besides, many early on operating systems do not support multiple encoding formats and thus will cease upwards displaying mojibake if fabricated to display non-standard text—early versions of Microsoft Windows and Palm OS for example, are localized on a per-country basis and will just 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 unlike encoding format from the version that the OS is designed to back up is opened.
Resolutions [edit]
Applications using UTF-8 as a default encoding may achieve a greater degree of interoperability because of its widespread employ and astern compatibility with U.s.-ASCII. UTF-8 too has the ability to be straight recognised past a elementary algorithm, so that well written software should be able to avoid mixing UTF-8 upwardly with other encodings.
The difficulty of resolving an instance of mojibake varies depending on the application within which information technology occurs and the causes of it. Two of the most common applications in which mojibake may occur are web browsers and discussion processors. Modernistic browsers and discussion processors often support a wide array of graphic symbol encodings. Browsers often permit a user to change their rendering engine'due south encoding setting on the fly, while word processors let the user to select the advisable encoding when opening a file. It may accept some trial and error for users to observe the correct encoding.
The trouble gets more complicated when it occurs in an application that ordinarily does non support a wide range of character encoding, such as in a non-Unicode estimator game. In this case, the user must change the operating system's encoding settings to match that of the game. Still, changing the system-broad encoding settings can also cause Mojibake in pre-existing applications. In Windows XP or later on, a user also has the selection to use Microsoft AppLocale, an awarding that allows the irresolute of per-awarding locale settings. Nonetheless, changing the operating arrangement encoding settings is non possible on earlier operating systems such as Windows 98; to resolve this issue on earlier operating systems, a user would have to use tertiary party font rendering applications.
Bug in dissimilar writing systems [edit]
English [edit]
Mojibake in English texts generally 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 information technology was encoded by the sender as UTF-8 but interpreted by the recipient every bit CP1252 or ISO 8859-1. If iterated using CP1252, this tin can lead to "£", "£", "ÃÆ'‚£", etc.
Some computers did, in older eras, have vendor-specific encodings which caused mismatch also for English text. Commodore brand viii-bit computers used PETSCII encoding, especially 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 letters. IBM mainframes use the EBCDIC encoding which does not lucifer ASCII at all.
Other Western European languages [edit]
The alphabets of the North Germanic languages, Catalan, Finnish, German, French, Portuguese and Spanish are all extensions of the Latin alphabet. The additional characters are typically the ones that become corrupted, making texts merely 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 gaelic
- à, è, ì, ò, ù in Scottish Gaelic
- £ in British English
… and their uppercase counterparts, if applicable.
These are languages for which the ISO-8859-1 character prepare (likewise known as Latin one or Western) has been in use. However, ISO-8859-one has been obsoleted by two competing standards, the backward compatible Windows-1252, and the slightly altered ISO-8859-xv. Both add the Euro sign € and the French œ, but otherwise whatever confusion of these three grapheme sets does non create mojibake in these languages. Furthermore, information technology is always safe to interpret ISO-8859-1 as Windows-1252, and fairly safe to translate it every bit ISO-8859-15, in item with respect to the Euro sign, which replaces the rarely used currency sign (¤). However, with the advent of UTF-8, mojibake has become more common in certain scenarios, due east.grand. exchange of text files between UNIX and Windows computers, due to UTF-8's incompatibility with Latin-1 and Windows-1252. Merely UTF-8 has the ability to exist directly recognised past a uncomplicated algorithm, and 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 motorcar default encodings, except ASCII, so issues when buying an operating system version were less common. Windows and MS-DOS are not compatible however.
In Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and German, vowels are rarely repeated, and it is usually obvious when ane graphic symbol gets corrupted, due east.chiliad. the 2d letter in "kärlek" ( kärlek , "love"). This way, even though the reader has to guess between å, ä and ö, almost all texts remain legible. Finnish text, on the other hand, does feature repeating vowels in words like hääyö ("wedding night") which tin sometimes render text very difficult to read (e.g. hääyö appears every bit "hääyö"). Icelandic and Faroese have ten and eight possibly misreckoning characters, respectively, which thus can arrive more difficult to gauge corrupted characters; Icelandic words like þjóðlöð ("outstanding hospitality") become almost entirely unintelligible when rendered as "þjóðlöð".
In German language, Buchstabensalat ("letter salad") is a common term for this phenomenon, and in Spanish, deformación (literally deformation).
Some users transliterate their writing when using a computer, either past 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 practice seems to be better tolerated in the German linguistic communication sphere than in the Nordic countries. For instance, in Norwegian, digraphs are associated with primitive Danish, and may be used jokingly. However, digraphs are useful in communication with other parts of the earth. As an example, the Norwegian football game player Ole Gunnar Solskjær had his proper noun spelled "SOLSKJAER" on his back when he played for Manchester United.
An antiquity of UTF-8 misinterpreted equally ISO-8859-ane, "Band meg nÃ¥" (" Ring 1000000 nå "), was seen in an SMS scam raging in Norway in June 2014.[v]
| Swedish example: | Smörgås (open sandwich) | |
|---|---|---|
| File encoding | Setting in browser | Result |
| MS-DOS 437 | ISO 8859-ane | Sm"rg†s |
| ISO 8859-i | Mac Roman | SmˆrgÂs |
| UTF-8 | ISO 8859-one | Smörgåsouthward |
| UTF-eight | Mac Roman | Smörgås |
Central and Eastern European [edit]
Users of Key and Eastern European languages can besides be afflicted. Considering most computers were not continued to any network during the mid- to belatedly-1980s, there were different character encodings for every linguistic communication with diacritical characters (encounter ISO/IEC 8859 and KOI-8), oft as well varying by operating arrangement.
Hungarian [edit]
Hungarian is another affected linguistic communication, which uses the 26 basic English characters, plus the accented forms á, é, í, ó, ú, ö, ü (all present in the Latin-1 graphic symbol set), plus the ii characters ő and ű, which are not in Latin-1. These 2 characters tin can be correctly encoded in Latin-2, Windows-1250 and Unicode. Earlier Unicode became common in e-mail clients, e-mails containing Hungarian text often had the letters ő and ű corrupted, sometimes to the point of unrecognizability. It is common to respond to an east-mail service rendered unreadable (see examples beneath) by character mangling (referred to as "betűszemét", meaning "letter garbage") with the phrase "Árvíztűrő tükörfúrógép", a nonsense phrase (literally "Flood-resistant mirror-drilling machine") containing all accented characters used in Hungarian.
Examples [edit]
| Source encoding | Target encoding | Result | Occurrence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hungarian example | ÁRVÍZTŰRŐ TÜKÖRFÚRÓGÉP árvíztűrő tükörfúrógép | Characters in crimson are incorrect and do non friction match the superlative-left case. | |
| CP 852 | CP 437 | ╡RV╓ZTδRè TÜKÖRFΘRαGÉP árvízt√rï tükörfúrógép | This was very common in DOS-era when the text was encoded by the Central European CP 852 encoding; however, the operating system, a software or printer used the default CP 437 encoding. Please notation that small-case letters are mainly correct, exception with ő (ï) and ű (√). Ü/ü is right because CP 852 was made compatible with German. Nowadays occurs mainly on printed prescriptions and cheques. |
| CWI-two | 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 on 1990s, but present it is completely deprecated. |
| Windows-1250 | Windows-1252 | ÁRVÍZTÛRÕ TÜKÖRFÚRÓGÉP árvíztûrõ tükörfúrógép | The default Western Windows encoding is used instead of the Central-European one. But ő-Ő (õ-Õ) and ű-Ű (û-Û) are incorrect, but the text is completely readable. This is the near mutual fault nowadays; due to ignorance, it occurs often on webpages or even in printed media. |
| CP 852 | Windows-1250 | µRVÖZTëRŠ Tš1000™RFéRŕM 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┌RËG╔P ßrvÝztűr§ tŘk÷rf˙rˇ1000Úp | Central European DOS encoding is used instead of Windows encoding. The apply of ű is correct. |
| Quoted-printable | vii-bit ASCII | =C1RV=CDZT=DBR=D5 T=DCGrand=D6RF=DAR=D3G=C9P =E1rv=EDzt=FBr=F5 t=FCk=F6rf=FAr=F3g=E9p | Mainly caused by wrongly configured mail service servers but may occur in SMS messages on some jail cell-phones as well. |
| UTF-viii | Windows-1252 | ÃRVÃZTÅ°RÅ TÃœMÖRFÚRÃ"ThousandÉP árvÃztűrÅ' tügrandörfúrógép | 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 instance the bodily (often generated) content is in UTF-8; even so, 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-ii in 1987, users of various computing platforms used their own character encodings such as AmigaPL on Amiga, Atari Club on Atari ST and Masovia, IBM CP852, Mazovia and Windows CP1250 on IBM PCs. Smoothen companies selling early DOS computers created their own mutually-incompatible ways to encode Polish characters and simply reprogrammed the EPROMs of the video cards (typically CGA, EGA, or Hercules) to provide hardware code pages with the needed glyphs for Smooth—arbitrarily located without reference to where other calculator sellers had placed them.
The situation began to improve when, later pressure from bookish and user groups, ISO 8859-ii succeeded as the "Internet standard" with limited support of the dominant vendors' software (today largely replaced by Unicode). With the numerous problems acquired by the variety of encodings, even today some users tend to refer to Polish diacritical characters as krzaczki ([ˈkʂät͜ʂ.ki], lit. "little shrubs").
Russian and other Cyrillic alphabets [edit]
Mojibake may be colloquially called krakozyabry ( кракозя́бры [krɐkɐˈzʲæbrɪ̈]) in Russian, which was and remains complicated by several systems for encoding Cyrillic.[6] The Soviet Union and early Russian Federation developed KOI encodings ( Kod Obmena Informatsiey , Код Обмена Информацией , which translates to "Code for Information Exchange"). This began with Cyrillic-only 7-scrap KOI7, based on ASCII but with Latin and some other characters replaced with Cyrillic letters. So came eight-bit KOI8 encoding that is an ASCII extension which encodes Cyrillic messages only with high-chip prepare octets corresponding to 7-fleck codes from KOI7. It is for this reason that KOI8 text, even Russian, remains partially readable after stripping the eighth bit, which was considered every bit a major advantage in the historic period of 8BITMIME-unaware electronic mail systems. For example, words " Школа русского языка " shkola russkogo yazyka , encoded in KOI8 so passed through the high bit stripping process, stop upwards rendered as "[KOLA RUSSKOGO qZYKA". Somewhen 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 page 866 supported Ukrainian and Belarusian besides as Russian/Bulgarian in MS-DOS. For Microsoft Windows, Lawmaking Folio 1251 added support for Serbian and other Slavic variants of Cyrillic.
Well-nigh recently, the Unicode encoding includes code points for practically all the characters of all the world'south languages, including all Cyrillic characters.
Before Unicode, it was necessary to match text encoding with a font using the aforementioned 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 not-Unicode Cyrillic text using a font that is express to the Latin alphabet, or using the default ("Western") encoding, typically results in text that consists 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 capital letters (KOI8 and codepage 1251 share the same ASCII region, but KOI8 has capital 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 years of the Russian sector of the Earth Wide Web, both KOI8 and codepage 1251 were common. As of 2017, one tin can still run across HTML pages in codepage 1251 and, rarely, KOI8 encodings, likewise as Unicode. (An estimated ane.7% of all spider web pages worldwide – all languages included – are encoded in codepage 1251.[7]) Though the HTML standard includes the ability to specify the encoding for any given web page in its source,[viii] this is sometimes neglected, forcing the user to switch encodings in the browser manually.
In Bulgarian, mojibake is often called majmunica ( маймуница ), meaning "monkey's [alphabet]". In Serbian, information technology is called đubre ( ђубре ), meaning "trash". Unlike the former USSR, 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.
| Russian example: | Кракозябры ( krakozyabry , garbage characters) | |
|---|---|---|
| File encoding | Setting in browser | Outcome |
| MS-DOS 855 | ISO 8859-1 | Æá ÆÖóÞ¢áñ |
| KOI8-R | ISO 8859-1 | ëÒÁËÏÚÑÂÒÙ |
| UTF-8 | KOI8-R | п я─п╟п╨п╬п╥я▐п╠я─я▀ |
Yugoslav languages [edit]
Croation, Bosnian, Serbian (the seceding varieties of 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, generally in foreign names, too). All of these messages are defined in Latin-2 and Windows-1250, while but some (š, Š, ž, Ž, Đ) exist in the usual OS-default Windows-1252, and are in that location 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, even nowadays, "šđčćž ŠĐČĆŽ" is frequently displayed every bit "šðèæž ŠÐÈÆŽ", although ð, è, æ, È, Æ are never used in Slavic languages.
When bars to basic ASCII (virtually user names, for instance), mutual replacements are: š→southward, đ→dj, č→c, ć→c, ž→z (capital forms analogously, with Đ→Dj or Đ→DJ depending on word case). All of these replacements innovate ambiguities, and then reconstructing the original from such a class is usually done manually if required.
The Windows-1252 encoding is of import because the English language versions of the Windows operating system are well-nigh widespread, non localized ones.[ citation needed ] The reasons for this include a relatively pocket-size and fragmented marketplace, increasing the price of high quality localization, a high caste of software piracy (in plough caused past high 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 Croatian from Serbian, Bosnian from Croation and Serbian, and now even Montenegrin from the other three creates many problems. At that place are many different localizations, using different standards and of different quality. There are no common translations for the vast amount of computer terminology originating in English. In the end, people use adopted English words ("kompjuter" for "figurer", "kompajlirati" for "compile," etc.), and if they are unaccustomed to the translated terms may not empathize what some option in a card is supposed to do based on the translated phrase. Therefore, people who understand English, every bit well every bit those who are accustomed to English terminology (who are about, because English language terminology is besides mostly taught in schools because of these bug) regularly choose the original English versions of non-specialist software.
When Cyrillic script is used (for Macedonian and partially Serbian), the trouble is similar to other Cyrillic-based scripts.
Newer versions of English Windows allow the code page to be changed (older versions crave special English versions with this back up), but this setting can be and often was incorrectly set. For example, Windows 98 and Windows Me can exist set to nearly non-right-to-left unmarried-byte code pages including 1250, but but at install time.
Caucasian languages [edit]
The writing systems of certain languages of the Caucasus region, including the scripts of Georgian and Armenian, may produce mojibake. This problem is particularly acute in the case of ArmSCII or ARMSCII, a gear up of obsolete character encodings for the Armenian alphabet which have been superseded by Unicode standards. ArmSCII is non widely used because of a lack of back up in the computer industry. For example, Microsoft Windows does not support it.
Asian encodings [edit]
Another type of mojibake occurs when text is erroneously parsed in a multi-byte encoding, such every bit one of the encodings for East Asian languages. With this kind of mojibake more than i (typically two) characters are corrupted at once, e.grand. "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 2 messages are combined, the mojibake also seems more random (over fifty variants compared to the normal 3, not counting the rarer capitals). In some rare cases, an unabridged text string which happens to include a pattern of item word lengths, such as the judgement "Bush hid the facts", may exist misinterpreted.
Vietnamese [edit]
In Vietnamese, the phenomenon is called chữ ma , loạn mã can occur when computer endeavour 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.
| Example: | Trăm năm trong cõi người ta (Truyện Kiều, Nguyễn Du) | |
|---|---|---|
| Original encoding | Target encoding | Issue |
| Windows-1258 | UTF-8 | Trăm năm trong cõi ngÆ°á»i ta |
| TCVN3 | UTF-viii | Tr¨k n¨chiliad trong câi ngêi ta |
| VNI (Windows) | UTF-8 | Traêm naêyard trong coõi ngöôøi ta |
Japanese [edit]
In Japanese, the aforementioned phenomenon is, as mentioned, chosen 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-viii and UTF-16, there are other standard encodings, such as Shift-JIS (Windows machines) and EUC-JP (UNIX systems). Mojibake, every bit well as being encountered by Japanese users, is besides often encountered by not-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 'cluttered code'), and can occur when computerised text is encoded in one Chinese graphic symbol encoding but is displayed using the wrong encoding. When this occurs, it is often possible to prepare the issue by switching the graphic symbol encoding without loss of data. The situation is complicated because of the existence of several Chinese character encoding systems in use, the most common ones existence: Unicode, Big5, and Guobiao (with several backward compatible versions), and the possibility of Chinese characters beingness encoded using Japanese encoding.
It is easy to identify the original encoding when luanma occurs in Guobiao encodings:
| Original encoding | Viewed every bit | 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 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 equally characters with the radical 亻, while kanji are other characters. Most 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 most cases make no sense. Easily identifiable because of spaces between every several characters. |
An additional trouble is caused when encodings are missing characters, which is common with rare or antiquated characters that are however 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 )'s "堃" and singer David Tao (Chinese: 陶喆; pinyin: Táo Zhé )'s "喆" missing in Big5, ex-China Premier Zhu Rongji (Chinese: 朱镕基; pinyin: Zhū Róngjī )'s "镕" missing in GB2312, copyright symbol "©" missing in GBK.[9]
Newspapers accept dealt with this trouble in diverse 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 character in the hope that the reader would be able to make the right inference.
Indic text [edit]
A similar effect tin can occur in Brahmic or Indic scripts of South asia, used in such Indo-Aryan or Indic languages as Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu), Bengali, Punjabi, Marä thi, and others, even if the character set employed is properly recognized by the application. This is considering, in many Indic scripts, the rules by which individual letter symbols combine to create symbols for syllables may not be properly understood by a computer missing the advisable software, fifty-fifty if the glyphs for the private letter of the alphabet forms are available.
One example of this is the quondam Wikipedia logo, which attempts to testify the grapheme coordinating to "wi" (the first syllable of "Wikipedia") on each of many puzzle pieces. The puzzle piece meant to bear the Devanagari character for "wi" instead used to display the "wa" graphic symbol followed by an unpaired "i" modifier vowel, hands recognizable as mojibake generated past a computer not configured to display Indic text.[10] The logo as redesigned every bit of May 2010[ref] has stock-still these errors.
The thought of Plainly Text requires the operating organization to provide a font to brandish Unicode codes. This font is different from OS to Bone for Singhala and it makes orthographically incorrect glyphs for some letters (syllables) across all operating systems. For case, the 'reph', the brusque grade for 'r' is a diacritic that normally goes on top of a evidently alphabetic character. Notwithstanding, it is incorrect to continue meridian of some letters 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 height of these letters. By contrast, for similar sounds in modern languages which event from their specific rules, it is not put on superlative, such as the word करणाऱ्या, IAST: karaṇāryā, a stem grade of the common give-and-take करणारा/री, IAST: karaṇārā/rī, in the Marathi language.[xi] But it happens in most operating systems. This appears to exist a mistake of internal programming of the fonts. In Mac Os and iOS, the muurdhaja l (nighttime l) 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 past Windows XP until the release of Vista.[12] However, various sites have made free-to-download fonts.
Burmese [edit]
Due to Western sanctions[13] and the late inflow of Burmese language back up 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 every bit a Unicode font but was in fact only partially Unicode compliant.[15] 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 as 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 return as garbled text. To get around this outcome, content producers would make posts in both Zawgyi and Unicode.[eighteen] Myanmar government has designated 1 October 2019 as "U-Day" to officially switch to Unicode.[thirteen] The full transition is estimated to accept two years.[19]
African languages [edit]
In certain writing systems of Africa, unencoded text is unreadable. Texts that may produce mojibake include those from the Horn of Africa such equally the Ge'ez script in Federal democratic republic of ethiopia and Eritrea, used for Amharic, Tigre, and other languages, and the Somali language, which employs the Osmanya alphabet. In Southern Africa, the Mwangwego alphabet is used to write languages of Malawi and the Mandombe alphabet was created for the Congo-kinshasa, just these are not generally supported. Various other writing systems native to West Africa nowadays similar problems, such as the N'Ko alphabet, used for Manding languages in Guinea, and the Vai syllabary, used in Republic of liberia.
Arabic [edit]
Another afflicted language is Arabic (see below). The text becomes unreadable when the encodings practise not match.
Examples [edit]
| File encoding | Setting in browser | Upshot |
|---|---|---|
| Arabic example: |  (Universal Proclamation of Human Rights) | |
| Browser rendering: | الإعلان العالمى لحقوق الإنسان | |
| UTF-8 | Windows-1252 | الإعلان العالمى Ù„Øقوق 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-vi | ُ؛؟ظ�ع�ظ�ظ�ع�ظ�ع� ظ�ع�ظ�ظ�ع�ع�ع� ع�ظع�ع�ع� ظ�ع�ظ�ع�ظ�ظ�ع� | |
| ISO 8859-2 | اŮ�ŘĽŘšŮ�اŮ� اŮ�ؚاŮ�Ů�Ů� Ů�ŘŮ�Ů�Ů� اŮ�ŘĽŮ�ساŮ� | |
| Windows-1256 | Windows-1252 | ÇáÅÚáÇä ÇáÚÇáãì áÍÞæÞ ÇáÅäÓÇä |
The examples in this article practise not accept UTF-8 equally browser setting, because UTF-8 is hands recognisable, so if a browser supports UTF-8 information technology should recognise it automatically, and non effort to interpret something else as UTF-viii.
Meet also [edit]
- Code point
- Replacement grapheme
- Substitute grapheme
- Newline – The conventions for representing the line pause differ betwixt Windows and Unix systems. Though most software supports both conventions (which is trivial), software that must preserve or brandish the departure (e.thousand. version control systems and data comparison tools) tin get substantially more hard to use if non adhering to one convention.
- Byte order marker – The most in-band way to shop the encoding together with the information – prepend it. This is past intention invisible to humans using compliant software, but will by blueprint be perceived as "garbage characters" to incompliant software (including many interpreters).
- HTML entities – An encoding of special characters in HTML, generally optional, simply required for sure characters to escape interpretation equally markup.
While failure to employ this transformation is a vulnerability (see cross-site scripting), applying it likewise many times results in garbling of these characters. For example, the quotation marker
"becomes",","and and then on. - Bush hid the facts
References [edit]
- ^ a b Male monarch, Ritchie (2012). "Will unicode before long exist the universal code? [The Data]". IEEE Spectrum. 49 (seven): lx. doi:10.1109/MSPEC.2012.6221090.
- ^ WINDISCHMANN, Stephan (31 March 2004). "gyre -v linux.ars (Internationalization)". Ars Technica . Retrieved 5 Oct 2018.
- ^ "Guidelines for extended attributes". 2013-05-17. Retrieved 2015-02-15 .
- ^ "Unicode mailinglist on the Eudora email client". 2001-05-13. Retrieved 2014-11-01 .
- ^ "sms-scam". June eighteen, 2014. Retrieved June 19, 2014.
- ^ p. 141, Command + Alt + Delete: A Lexicon of Cyberslang, Jonathon Keats, Globe Pequot, 2007, ISBN one-59921-039-viii.
- ^ "Usage of Windows-1251 for websites".
- ^ "Declaring character encodings in HTML".
- ^ "China GBK (XGB)". Microsoft. Archived from the original on 2002-10-01. Conversion map between Lawmaking page 936 and Unicode. Need manually selecting GB18030 or GBK in browser to view it correctly.
- ^ 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.
- ^ https://marathi.indiatyping.com/
- ^ "Content Moved (Windows)". Msdn.microsoft.com. Retrieved 2014-02-05 .
- ^ a b "Unicode in, Zawgyi out: Modernity finally catches up in Myanmar'due south digital world". The Japan Times. 27 September 2019. Retrieved 24 December 2019.
Oct. 1 is "U-24-hour interval", when Myanmar officially volition prefer the new system.... Microsoft and Apple helped other countries standardize years ago, but Western sanctions meant Myanmar lost out.
- ^ a b Hotchkiss, Griffin (March 23, 2016). "Battle of the fonts". Frontier 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 equally Myanmar1 (released in 2005). ... Myazedi, Bit, and afterwards Zawgyi, circumscribed the rendering problem by adding extra code points that were reserved for Myanmar'due south ethnic languages. Not only does the re-mapping prevent future indigenous language support, it also results in a typing organisation that can exist confusing and inefficient, even for experienced users. ... Huawei and Samsung, the ii most popular smartphone brands in Myanmar, are motivated only past capturing the largest marketplace share, which means they back up Zawgyi out of the box.
- ^ a b Sin, Thant (7 September 2019). "Unified under one font organization as Myanmar prepares to drift from Zawgyi to Unicode". Rising Voices . Retrieved 24 December 2019.
Standard Myanmar Unicode fonts were never mainstreamed unlike the individual and partially Unicode compliant Zawgyi font. ... Unicode will ameliorate tongue processing
- ^ "Why Unicode is Needed". Google Lawmaking: Zawgyi Project . Retrieved 31 October 2013.
- ^ "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 every bit Zawgyi.
- ^ LaGrow, Nick; Pruzan, Miri (September 26, 2019). "Integrating autoconversion: Facebook's path from Zawgyi to Unicode - Facebook Engineering". Facebook Engineering. Facebook. Retrieved 25 December 2019.
It makes advice on digital platforms difficult, every bit content written in Unicode appears garbled to Zawgyi users and vice versa. ... In order to ameliorate attain their audiences, content producers in Myanmar oftentimes post in both Zawgyi and Unicode in a single post, non to mention English or other languages.
- ^ Saw Yi Nanda (21 November 2019). "Myanmar switch to Unicode to take ii years: app developer". The Myanmar Times . Retrieved 24 December 2019.
External links [edit]
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojibake
0 Response to "I Know I Never Love Again Ãâ³ãâ¾ã‘€ã‘â㑇ãâ¸ã⹠Ñë†ãâ¾ãâºãâ¾ãâ»ãâ°ãâ´"
Post a Comment