what is △ n for the following equation in relating k_c c ​ to k_p p ​ ?

Garbled text as a issue of incorrect character encoding

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

This display may include the generic replacement graphic symbol ("�") in places where the binary representation is considered invalid. A replacement can also involve multiple consecutive symbols, as viewed in i encoding, when the same binary code constitutes 1 symbol in the other encoding. This is either because of differing abiding length encoding (as in Asian 16-bit encodings vs European viii-scrap encodings), or the use of variable length encodings (notably UTF-8 and UTF-16).

Failed rendering of glyphs due to either missing fonts or missing glyphs in a font is a dissimilar outcome that is not to exist confused with mojibake. Symptoms of this failed rendering include blocks with the lawmaking indicate displayed in hexadecimal or using the generic replacement character. Importantly, these replacements are valid and are the result of correct fault handling by the software.

Etymology [edit]

Mojibake means "grapheme 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 data and the notion of its encoding must be preserved. As mojibake is the instance of non-compliance betwixt these, it tin can be achieved past manipulating the data itself, or simply relabeling it.

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

The differing default settings between computers are in part due to differing deployments of Unicode among operating organization families, and partly the legacy encodings' specializations for different writing systems of human languages. Whereas Linux distributions by and large switched to UTF-viii in 2004,^[2] Microsoft Windows generally uses UTF-16, and sometimes uses 8-bit code pages for text files in different languages.^{[ dubious – hash out ]}

For some writing systems, an example being Japanese, several encodings have historically been employed, causing users to see mojibake relatively often. Every bit a Japanese example, the word mojibake "文字化け" stored as EUC-JP might be incorrectly displayed equally "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 equally UTF-8 is displayed equally "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 exist in the Windows-1252 or ISO-8859-one encodings, usually labelled Western, or (for example) every bit "鏂囧瓧鍖栥亼" if interpreted every bit being in a GBK (Prc) locale.

Mojibake case

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-one encoding	Ê	¸	»	ú	²	½	¤	±
Bytes interpreted as GBK encoding	矢		机		步		け

Underspecification [edit]

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

The encoding of text files is affected by locale setting, which depends on the user'southward language, brand of operating organisation and mayhap other weather. Therefore, the causeless encoding is systematically wrong for files that come up from a computer with a different setting, or even from a differently localized software within the same system. For Unicode, one solution is to utilize a byte society 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 system. File systems that support extended file attributes can store this as user.charset.^[three] This too requires support in software that wants to take advantage of it, but does not disturb other software.

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

Mis-specification [edit]

Mojibake as well occurs when the encoding is wrongly specified. This often happens between encodings that are similar. For example, the Eudora email customer for Windows was known to send emails labelled as ISO-8859-1 that were in reality Windows-1252.^[4] The Mac Os version of Eudora did not showroom this behaviour. Windows-1252 contains extra printable characters in the C1 range (the near oftentimes 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 being ignorance [edit]

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

• Compatibility can be a deceptive holding, as the common subset of characters is unaffected past a mixup of ii encodings (encounter Problems in different writing systems).
• People think they are using ASCII, and tend to label whatever superset of ASCII they really use as "ASCII". Maybe for simplification, but even in academic literature, the word "ASCII" tin can be found used as an example of something not compatible with Unicode, where plainly "ASCII" is Windows-1252 and "Unicode" is UTF-eight.^[1] Notation that UTF-8 is backwards uniform with ASCII.

Overspecification [edit]

When there are layers of protocols, each trying to specify the encoding based on different information, the to the lowest degree certain information may exist misleading to the recipient. For case, consider a web server serving a static HTML file over HTTP. The character set may exist communicated to the client in any number of 3 means:

• 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, equally an HTML meta tag (http-equiv or charset) or the encoding aspect of an XML declaration. This is the encoding that the writer meant to save the particular file in.
• in the file, as a byte order mark. This is the encoding that the author's editor actually saved information technology in. Unless an accidental encoding conversion has happened (by opening it in one encoding and saving it in some other), this volition be correct. Information technology is, however, merely 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 support merely one grapheme set and the character set typically cannot be altered. The character tabular array contained inside the display firmware will be localized to have characters for the land the device is to exist sold in, and typically the table differs from country to land. Equally such, these systems volition potentially display mojibake when loading text generated on a system from a unlike country. Likewise, many early operating systems do non back up multiple encoding formats and thus will end up displaying mojibake if made to display non-standard text—early on versions of Microsoft Windows and Palm Os for example, are localized on a per-country ground and volition only support encoding standards relevant to the country the localized version will be sold in, and volition display mojibake if a file containing a text in a dissimilar encoding format from the version that the Os is designed to support is opened.

Resolutions [edit]

Applications using UTF-8 as a default encoding may accomplish a greater caste of interoperability because of its widespread use and astern compatibility with U.s.-ASCII. UTF-8 also has the power to be straight recognised by a simple algorithm, then that well written software should be able to avoid mixing UTF-8 upward with other encodings.

The difficulty of resolving an case of mojibake varies depending on the application within which it occurs and the causes of it. Two of the near common applications in which mojibake may occur are web browsers and give-and-take processors. Modern browsers and word processors oft support a wide array of character encodings. Browsers often allow a user to modify their rendering engine's encoding setting on the wing, while word processors allow the user to select the appropriate encoding when opening a file. It may accept some trial and fault for users to discover the right encoding.

The problem gets more than complicated when it occurs in an application that normally does not support a wide range of grapheme encoding, such as in a not-Unicode calculator game. In this case, the user must change the operating arrangement's encoding settings to match that of the game. Yet, changing the organization-wide encoding settings can besides cause Mojibake in pre-existing applications. In Windows XP or later, a user also has the pick to employ Microsoft AppLocale, an application that allows the changing of per-application locale settings. However, changing the operating arrangement 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 use third political party font rendering applications.

Problems in dissimilar writing systems [edit]

English [edit]

Mojibake in English language texts generally occurs in punctuation, such as em dashes (—), en dashes (–), and curly quotes (",",','), but rarely in graphic symbol text, since near encodings concord with ASCII on the encoding of the English alphabet. For example, the pound sign "£" will appear as "£" if it was encoded past the sender as UTF-viii but interpreted by the recipient as 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 eight-bit computers used PETSCII encoding, specially notable for inverting the upper and lower case compared to standard ASCII. PETSCII printers worked fine on other computers of the era, just flipped the case of all letters. IBM mainframes use the EBCDIC encoding which does not match ASCII at all.

Other Western European languages [edit]

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

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

… and their uppercase 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 ii competing standards, the backward uniform Windows-1252, and the slightly contradistinct ISO-8859-xv. Both add the Euro sign € and the French œ, just otherwise any defoliation of these three character sets does not create mojibake in these languages. Furthermore, it is always safe to interpret ISO-8859-1 as Windows-1252, and adequately prophylactic to interpret information technology as ISO-8859-15, in particular with respect to the Euro sign, which replaces the rarely used currency sign (¤). Notwithstanding, with the appearance of UTF-8, mojibake has get more than common in certain scenarios, e.grand. exchange of text files between UNIX and Windows computers, due to UTF-viii'due south incompatibility with Latin-1 and Windows-1252. But UTF-8 has the ability to be directly recognised by a simple algorithm, and then that well written software should be able to avoid mixing UTF-8 up with other encodings, and so this was almost common when many had software non supporting UTF-8. Nearly of these languages were supported by MS-DOS default CP437 and other machine default encodings, except ASCII, and so problems when buying an operating system version were less common. Windows and MS-DOS are non uniform however.

In Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and High german, vowels are rarely repeated, and it is ordinarily obvious when one grapheme gets corrupted, e.g. the second letter in "kÃ⁠¤rlek" ( kärlek , "beloved"). This manner, even though the reader has to guess 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 nighttime") which can sometimes render text very hard to read (e.one thousand. hääyö appears as "hÃ⁠¤Ã⁠¤yÃ⁠¶"). Icelandic and Faroese have 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") become almost entirely unintelligible when rendered as "þjóðlöð".

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

Some users transliterate their writing when using a computer, either by omitting the problematic diacritics, or past using digraph replacements (å → aa, ä/æ → ae, ö/ø → oe, ü → ue etc.). Thus, an author might write "ueber" instead of "über", which is standard practice in German language when umlauts are not available. The latter practice seems to be better tolerated in the German language sphere than in the Nordic countries. For example, in Norwegian, digraphs are associated with archaic Danish, and may be used jokingly. Even so, 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 name spelled "SOLSKJAER" on his back when he played for Manchester United.

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

Examples

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

Central and Eastern European [edit]

Users of Fundamental and Eastern European languages can as well be afflicted. Considering most computers were not continued to any network during the mid- to belatedly-1980s, there were unlike character encodings for every linguistic communication with diacritical characters (see ISO/IEC 8859 and KOI-8), ofttimes likewise varying by operating system.

Hungarian [edit]

Hungarian is another affected linguistic communication, which uses the 26 basic English language characters, plus the accented forms á, é, í, ó, ú, ö, ü (all nowadays in the Latin-1 character set), plus the two characters ő and ű, which are not in Latin-1. These two characters can exist correctly encoded in Latin-2, Windows-1250 and Unicode. Before Unicode became common in electronic mail clients, e-mails containing Hungarian text often had the letters ő and ű corrupted, sometimes to the point of unrecognizability. It is mutual to respond to an e-mail rendered unreadable (meet examples below) by character mangling (referred to as "betűszemét", meaning "alphabetic character garbage") with the phrase "Árvíztűrő tükörfúrógép", a nonsense phrase (literally "Flood-resistant mirror-drilling automobile") containing all accented characters used in Hungarian.

Examples [edit]

Source encoding	Target encoding	Event	Occurrence
Hungarian example		ÁRVÍZTŰRŐ TÜKÖRFÚRÓGÉP árvíztűrő tükörfúrógép	Characters in red are wrong and do not lucifer the top-left instance.
CP 852	CP 437	╡RV╓ZTδRè TÜKÖRFΘRαGÉP árvízt√rï tükörfúrógép	This was very common in DOS-era when the text was encoded past the Cardinal European CP 852 encoding; notwithstanding, the operating system, a software or printer used the default CP 437 encoding. Please note that small-case letters are mainly correct, exception with ő (ï) and ű (√). Ü/ü is correct because CP 852 was made uniform with German language. Present occurs mainly on printed prescriptions and cheques.
CWI-ii	CP 437	ÅRVìZTÿRº TÜKÖRFùRòGÉP árvíztûrô tükörfúrógép	The CWI-2 encoding was designed so that the text remains fairly well-readable fifty-fifty if the display or printer uses the default CP 437 encoding. This encoding was heavily used in the 1980s and early 1990s, but present information technology is completely deprecated.
Windows-1250	Windows-1252	ÁRVÍZTÛRÕ TÜKÖRFÚRÓGÉP árvíztûrõ tükörfúrógép	The default Western Windows encoding is used instead of the Central-European i. Only ő-Ő (õ-Õ) and ű-Ű (û-Û) are wrong, but the text is completely readable. This is the virtually common error present; due to ignorance, information technology occurs often on webpages or even in printed media.
CP 852	Windows-1250	µRVÖZTëRŠ TšK™RFéRŕThou P rvˇztűr‹ t yard"rfŁr˘thousand‚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▄GrandÍRF┌RËG╔P ßrvÝztűr§ tŘchiliad÷rf˙rˇgÚp	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=DCK=D6RF=DAR=D3G=C9P =E1rv=EDzt=FBr=F5 t=FCm=F6rf=FAr=F3g=E9p	Mainly caused by wrongly configured mail servers just may occur in SMS messages on some cell-phones as well.
UTF-8	Windows-1252	ÁRVÍZTÅ°RŐ TÃœ1000ÖRFÚRÃ"GrandÉP árvÃztűrÅ' tükörfúrógrandép	Mainly caused by wrongly configured web services or webmail clients, which were not tested for international usage (as the trouble remains concealed for English texts). In this case the bodily (often generated) content is in UTF-8; however, information technology is non configured in the HTML headers, so the rendering engine displays it with the default Western encoding.

Polish [edit]

Prior to the creation of ISO 8859-two in 1987, users of various computing platforms used their ain grapheme 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 means to encode Smoothen 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 Shine—arbitrarily located without reference to where other figurer sellers had placed them.

The situation began to ameliorate when, later on force per unit area from bookish and user groups, ISO 8859-ii succeeded every bit the "Internet standard" with limited support of the dominant vendors' software (today largely replaced by Unicode). With the numerous issues caused by the diverseness of encodings, even today some users tend to refer to Polish diacritical characters every bit krzaczki ([kshach-kih], lit. "footling shrubs").

Russian and other Cyrillic alphabets [edit]

Mojibake may exist colloquially called krakozyabry ( кракозя́бры [krɐkɐˈzʲæbrɪ̈]) in Russian, which was and remains complicated by several systems for encoding Cyrillic.^{[half dozen]} The Soviet Marriage and early on Russian Federation developed KOI encodings ( Kod Obmena Informatsiey , Код Обмена Информацией , which translates to "Lawmaking for Information Exchange"). 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-bit KOI8 encoding that is an ASCII extension which encodes Cyrillic letters only with high-bit ready octets corresponding to 7-chip codes from KOI7. It is for this reason that KOI8 text, fifty-fifty Russian, remains partially readable after stripping the eighth bit, which was considered as a major advantage in the historic period of 8BITMIME-unaware email systems. For example, words " Школа русского языка " shkola russkogo yazyka , encoded in KOI8 and then passed through the high bit stripping process, end upwards rendered every bit "[KOLA RUSSKOGO qZYKA". Somewhen KOI8 gained different flavors for Russian and Bulgarian (KOI8-R), Ukrainian (KOI8-U), Belarusan (KOI8-RU) and fifty-fifty Tajik (KOI8-T).

Meanwhile, in the West, Code folio 866 supported Ukrainian and Belarusian besides 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, it was necessary to match text encoding with a font using the aforementioned encoding system. Failure to do this produced unreadable gibberish whose specific appearance varied depending on the exact combination of text encoding and font encoding. For example, attempting to view non-Unicode Cyrillic text using a font that is express 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 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 years of the Russian sector of the World wide web, both KOI8 and codepage 1251 were common. As of 2017, 1 can still encounter HTML pages in codepage 1251 and, rarely, KOI8 encodings, as well every bit Unicode. (An estimated 1.7% of all web pages worldwide – all languages included – are encoded in codepage 1251.^[7]) Though the HTML standard includes the ability to specify the encoding for any given web 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's [alphabet]". In Serbian, it is chosen đubre ( ђубре ), meaning "trash". Unlike the former USSR, South Slavs never used something similar KOI8, and Lawmaking Folio 1251 was the dominant Cyrillic encoding in that location before Unicode. Therefore, these languages experienced fewer encoding incompatibility troubles than Russian. In the 1980s, Bulgarian computers used their own MIK encoding, which is superficially like to (although incompatible with) CP866.

Example

Russian case:		Кракозябры ( krakozyabry , garbage characters)
File encoding	Setting in browser	Effect
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 dialects of the Yugoslav Serbo-Croation language) and Slovenian add to the basic Latin alphabet the letters š, đ, č, ć, ž, and their majuscule counterparts Š, Đ, Č, Ć, Ž (only č/Č, š/Š and ž/Ž in Slovene; officially, although others are used when needed, generally in foreign names, as well). All of these messages are divers in Latin-2 and Windows-1250, while only some (š, Š, ž, Ž, Đ) be in the usual OS-default Windows-1252, and are there because of some other languages.

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

When bars to basic ASCII (most user names, for example), common replacements are: š→s, đ→dj, č→c, ć→c, ž→z (majuscule forms analogously, with Đ→Dj or Đ→DJ depending on word instance). All of these replacements introduce ambiguities, so reconstructing the original from such a form is usually done manually if required.

The Windows-1252 encoding is important considering the English language versions of the Windows operating system are virtually widespread, not localized ones.^{[ citation needed ]} The reasons for this include a relatively small and fragmented marketplace, increasing the price of loftier quality localization, a loftier caste of software piracy (in turn caused by high toll 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 Croatian and Serbian, and at present fifty-fifty Montenegrin from the other three creates many problems. In that location are many dissimilar localizations, using different standards and of dissimilar quality. There are no common translations for the vast amount of computer terminology originating in English. In the end, people utilize adopted English words ("kompjuter" for "reckoner", "kompajlirati" for "compile," etc.), and if they are unaccustomed to the translated terms may not empathise what some choice in a menu is supposed to do based on the translated phrase. Therefore, people who understand English, also as those who are accustomed to English terminology (who are most, because English terminology is also mostly taught in schools considering of these problems) regularly choose the original English versions of not-specialist software.

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

Newer versions of English Windows allow the lawmaking page to be changed (older versions crave special English versions with this support), simply this setting can be and oft was incorrectly set. For case, Windows 98 and Windows Me can be set up to most not-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 peculiarly astute in the case of ArmSCII or ARMSCII, a set of obsolete character encodings for the Armenian alphabet which have been superseded past Unicode standards. ArmSCII is non widely used because of a lack of support in the estimator industry. For example, Microsoft Windows does not support information technology.

Asian encodings [edit]

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

Vietnamese [edit]

In Vietnamese, the phenomenon is called chữ ma , loạn mã tin can occur when computer try to encode diacritic character defined in Windows-1258, TCVN3 or VNI to UTF-eight. 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	Outcome
Windows-1258	UTF-8	Trăm năm trong cõi người ta
TCVN3	UTF-8	Tr¨k n¨m trong câi ngêi ta
VNI (Windows)	UTF-eight	Traêm 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 Nihon due to the numerous dissimilar encodings that exist for Japanese text. Aslope Unicode encodings like UTF-eight and UTF-sixteen, there are other standard encodings, such as Shift-JIS (Windows machines) and EUC-JP (UNIX systems). Mojibake, as well as being encountered past Japanese users, is likewise often encountered by non-Japanese when attempting to run software written for the Japanese market.

Chinese [edit]

In Chinese, the same miracle is called 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 graphic symbol encoding only is displayed using the wrong encoding. When this occurs, it is often possible to fix the issue past switching the character encoding without loss of data. The state of affairs is complicated considering of the beingness of several Chinese character encoding systems in utilize, the nearly common ones existence: Unicode, Big5, and Guobiao (with several backward compatible versions), and the possibility of Chinese characters existence encoded using Japanese encoding.

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

Original encoding	Viewed as	Result	Original text	Notation
Big5	GB	?T瓣в变巨肚	三國志曹操傳	Garbled Chinese characters with no hint of original pregnant. The red graphic symbol 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 mod Chinese.
EUC-KR	GB	叼力捞钙胶 抛农聪墨	디제이맥스 테크니카	Random mutual Simplified Chinese characters which in most cases make no sense. Easily identifiable because of spaces betwixt every several characters.

An additional problem is acquired when encodings are missing characters, which is mutual 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 )'south "煊", Yu Shyi-kun (simplified Chinese: 游锡堃; traditional Chinese: 游錫堃; pinyin: Yóu Xíkūn )'s "堃" and vocalist David Tao (Chinese: 陶喆; pinyin: Táo Zhé )'southward "喆" missing in Big5, ex-Prc Premier Zhu Rongji (Chinese: 朱镕基; pinyin: Zhū Róngjī )'s "镕" missing in GB2312, copyright symbol "©" missing in GBK.^[9]

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

Indic text [edit]

A like effect can occur in Brahmic or Indic scripts of Southern asia, used in such Indo-Aryan or Indic languages as Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu), Bengali, Punjabi, Marathi, and others, even if the grapheme gear up employed is properly recognized by the awarding. 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 appropriate software, even if the glyphs for the individual letter forms are available.

Ane example of this is the old 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 graphic symbol for "wi" instead used to display the "wa" character followed by an unpaired "i" modifier vowel, easily recognizable as mojibake generated past a calculator not configured to display Indic text.^[10] The logo equally redesigned as of May 2010^[ref] has stock-still these errors.

The idea of Apparently 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 commonly goes on top of a plainly letter. However, it is wrong to become on top of some letters like 'ya' or 'la' in specific contexts. For Sanskritic words or names inherited by modern languages, such every bit कार्य, IAST: kārya, or आर्या, IAST: āryā, it is apt to put it on top of these letters. By contrast, for like sounds in modernistic languages which result from their specific rules, it is not put on top, such as the word करणाऱ्या, IAST: karaṇāryā, a stem form of the common word करणारा/री, IAST: karaṇārā/rī, in the Marathi linguistic communication.^[11] But information technology happens in near operating systems. This appears to be a fault of internal programming of the fonts. In Mac OS and iOS, the muurdhaja l (night l) and 'u' combination and its long form both yield incorrect 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] Yet, various sites have made free-to-download fonts.

Burmese [edit]

Due to Western sanctions^[13] and the late inflow of Burmese language support in computers,^{[xiv] [15]} much of the early Burmese localization was homegrown without international cooperation. The prevailing means of Burmese support is via the Zawgyi font, a font that was created as a Unicode font but was in fact but partially Unicode compliant.^[xv] In the Zawgyi font, some codepoints for Burmese script were implemented as specified in Unicode, simply others were non.^[xvi] The Unicode Consortium refers to this as advertising hoc font encodings.^[17] With the advent of mobile phones, mobile vendors such as Samsung and Huawei only replaced the Unicode compliant system fonts with Zawgyi versions.^[14]

Due to these advert hoc encodings, communications between users of Zawgyi and Unicode would return as garbled text. To go effectually this consequence, content producers would make posts in both Zawgyi and Unicode.^[18] Myanmar government has designated 1 October 2019 as "U-Day" to officially switch to Unicode.^[13] The full transition is estimated to take ii years.^[19]

African languages [edit]

In certain writing systems of Africa, unencoded text is unreadable. Texts that may produce mojibake include those from the Horn of Africa such as the Ge'ez script in Federal democratic republic of ethiopia and Eritrea, used for Amharic, Tigre, and other languages, and the Somali linguistic communication, 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, only these are not generally supported. Various other writing systems native to Due west Africa present similar bug, such as the Due north'Ko alphabet, used for Manding languages in Republic of guinea, and the Vai syllabary, used in Republic of liberia.

Arabic [edit]

Some other afflicted language is Standard arabic (see below). The text becomes unreadable when the encodings do not match.

Examples [edit]

File encoding	Setting in browser	Issue
Standard arabic case:		(Universal Proclamation 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-half dozen	ُ؛؟ظ�ع�ظ�ظ�ع�ظ�ع� ظ�ع�ظ�ظ�ع�ع�ع� ع�ظع�ع�ع� ظ�ع�ظ�ع�ظ�ظ�ع�
	ISO 8859-2	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 have UTF-viii as browser setting, because UTF-8 is easily recognisable, and so if a browser supports UTF-8 it should recognise it automatically, and not try to interpret something else equally UTF-viii.

Run across also [edit]

• Code point
• Replacement character
• Substitute character
• Newline – The conventions for representing the line break differ between Windows and Unix systems. Though well-nigh software supports both conventions (which is trivial), software that must preserve or display the difference (east.thou. version control systems and data comparison tools) can go substantially more than difficult to use if not adhering to one convention.
• Byte gild mark – The about in-band mode to store the encoding together with the data – prepend information technology. This is by intention invisible to humans using compliant software, but 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 as markup.

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

• Bush hid the facts

References [edit]

1. ^ ^{a b} King, Ritchie (2012). "Will unicode presently be the universal code? [The Data]". IEEE Spectrum. 49 (7): threescore. doi:ten.1109/MSPEC.2012.6221090.
2. ^ WINDISCHMANN, Stephan (31 March 2004). "gyre -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-xiii. Retrieved 2014-11-01 .
5. ^ "sms-scam". June 18, 2014. Retrieved June xix, 2014.
6. ^ p. 141, Control + Alt + Delete: A Dictionary of Cyberslang, Jonathon Keats, World Pequot, 2007, ISBN 1-59921-039-8.
7. ^ "Usage of Windows-1251 for websites".
8. ^ "Declaring grapheme encodings in HTML".
9. ^ "PRC GBK (XGB)". Microsoft. Archived from the original on 2002-10-01. Conversion map between Code 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'south Logo Fractures the Sanskrit". The New York Times . Retrieved July 17, 2009.
11. ^ https://marāthi.indiatyping.com/
12. ^ "Content Moved (Windows)". Msdn.microsoft.com. Retrieved 2014-02-05 .
13. ^ ^{a b} "Unicode in, Zawgyi out: Modernity finally catches up in Myanmar'south digital earth". The Nihon Times. 27 September 2019. Retrieved 24 Dec 2019. Oct. 1 is "U-Twenty-four hours", when Myanmar officially will adopt the new system.... Microsoft and Apple helped other countries standardize years ago, but Western sanctions meant Myanmar lost out.
14. ^ ^{a b} Hotchkiss, Griffin (March 23, 2016). "Boxing of the fonts". Borderland Myanmar . Retrieved 24 December 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 trouble by adding actress code points that were reserved for Myanmar's ethnic languages. Non simply does the re-mapping forbid futurity ethnic linguistic communication support, it also results in a typing system that tin can be disruptive and inefficient, fifty-fifty for experienced users. ... Huawei and Samsung, the two most popular smartphone brands in Myanmar, are motivated merely 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 every bit Myanmar prepares to drift 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 improve tongue processing
16. ^ "Why Unicode is Needed". Google Code: Zawgyi Projection . Retrieved 31 October 2013.
17. ^ "Myanmar Scripts and Languages". Often Asked Questions. Unicode Consortium. Retrieved 24 December 2019. "UTF-8" technically does not utilise to advertisement hoc font encodings such as Zawgyi.
18. ^ LaGrow, Nick; Pruzan, Miri (September 26, 2019). "Integrating autoconversion: Facebook'due south path from Zawgyi to Unicode - Facebook Technology". Facebook Engineering. Facebook. Retrieved 25 December 2019. It makes communication on digital platforms difficult, as content written in Unicode appears garbled to Zawgyi users and vice versa. ... In order to ameliorate achieve their audiences, content producers in Myanmar ofttimes post in both Zawgyi and Unicode in a unmarried post, not to mention English or other languages.
19. ^ Saw Yi Nanda (21 November 2019). "Myanmar switch to Unicode to take 2 years: app developer". The Myanmar Times . Retrieved 24 December 2019.

External links [edit]

holleranpuring.blogspot.com

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

Share this post