2. what does it mean to say that p is “proportional†to t?
Mojibake ( 文字化け ; IPA: [mod͡ʑibake]) is the garbled text that is the result of text beingness decoded using an unintended character encoding.[one] The event is a systematic replacement of symbols with completely unrelated ones, often from a different writing arrangement.
This display may include the generic replacement character ("�") in places where the binary representation is considered invalid. A replacement can also involve multiple consecutive symbols, every bit viewed in one encoding, when the same binary code constitutes i symbol in the other encoding. This is either because of differing constant length encoding (as in Asian 16-flake encodings vs European eight-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 dissimilar issue that is non to exist dislocated with mojibake. Symptoms of this failed rendering include blocks with the code signal displayed in hexadecimal or using the generic replacement character. Importantly, these replacements are valid and are the result of correct error handling by the software.
Etymology [edit]
Mojibake means "grapheme transformation" in Japanese. The word is equanimous of 文字 (moji, IPA: [mod͡ʑi]), "character" 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 can be achieved by manipulating the information itself, or just relabeling it.
Mojibake is oft seen with text data that have been tagged with a incorrect encoding; it may non even exist tagged at all, just moved betwixt computers with dissimilar 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 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 different writing systems of homo languages. Whereas Linux distributions mostly switched to UTF-8 in 2004,[2] Microsoft Windows mostly uses UTF-16, and sometimes uses eight-bit code pages for text files in dissimilar languages.[ dubious ]
For some writing systems, an example beingness Japanese, several encodings have historically been employed, causing users to see mojibake relatively often. As a Japanese example, the word mojibake "文字化け" stored as EUC-JP might be incorrectly displayed as "ﾊｸｻ�ｽ､ｱ", "ﾊｸｻ嵂ｽ､ｱ" (MS-932), or "ﾊｸｻ郾ｽ､ｱ" (Shift JIS-2004). The same text stored as UTF-8 is displayed equally "譁�蟄怜喧縺�" if interpreted every bit Shift JIS. This is further exacerbated if other locales are involved: the same UTF-eight 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) equally "鏂囧瓧鍖栥亼" if interpreted as being in a GBK (Cathay) 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 as ISO-8859-1 encoding | Ê | ¸ | » | ú | ² | ½ | ¤ | ± |
| Bytes interpreted as GBK encoding | 矢 | 机 | 步 | け | ||||
Underspecification [edit]
If the encoding is not specified, it is up to the software to decide information technology by other ways. Depending on the type of software, the typical solution is either configuration or charset detection heuristics. Both are prone to mis-prediction in not-then-uncommon scenarios.
The encoding of text files is affected by locale setting, which depends on the user'southward language, brand of operating system and possibly other weather. Therefore, the assumed encoding is systematically wrong for files that come up from a calculator with a different setting, or even from a differently localized software inside the aforementioned system. For Unicode, ane solution is to employ a byte gild mark, but for source lawmaking and other machine readable text, many parsers don't tolerate this. Another is storing the encoding equally metadata in the file organization. File systems that support extended file attributes can shop this every bit user.charset.[3] This also requires support in software that wants to take reward 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 (see charset detection). A web browser may not be 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 exist 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 between encodings that are similar. For example, the Eudora electronic mail client for Windows was known to send emails labelled every bit ISO-8859-i 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 most frequently seen existence curved quotation marks and extra dashes), that were non displayed properly in software complying with the ISO standard; this especially affected software running nether other operating systems such equally Unix.
Human ignorance [edit]
Of the encodings still in use, many are partially compatible with each other, with ASCII every bit the predominant mutual subset. This sets the stage for human ignorance:
- Compatibility tin can be a deceptive belongings, every bit the common subset of characters is unaffected past a mixup of 2 encodings (see Problems in unlike writing systems).
- People think they are using ASCII, and tend to label any superset of ASCII they actually utilize equally "ASCII". Possibly for simplification, but fifty-fifty in academic literature, the discussion "ASCII" can be institute used every bit an example of something not compatible with Unicode, where plain "ASCII" is Windows-1252 and "Unicode" is UTF-8.[1] Note that UTF-viii is backwards compatible with ASCII.
Overspecification [edit]
When there are layers of protocols, each trying to specify the encoding based on dissimilar information, the least certain data may be misleading to the recipient. For example, consider a web server serving a static HTML file over HTTP. The character set up may be communicated to the client in whatsoever number of 3 ways:
- in the HTTP header. This information tin can be based on server configuration (for example, when serving a file off disk) or controlled by the application running on the server (for dynamic websites).
- in the file, every bit an HTML meta tag (
http-equivorcharset) or theencodingattribute of an XML declaration. This is the encoding that the writer meant to relieve the item file in. - in the file, as a byte order mark. This is the encoding that the author'south editor actually saved it in. Unless an accidental encoding conversion has happened (by opening it in 1 encoding and saving it in some other), this will be correct. It is, however, simply available in Unicode encodings such equally UTF-8 or UTF-16.
Lack of hardware or software support [edit]
Much older hardware is typically designed to back up only i grapheme fix and the character set typically cannot be altered. The character table contained within the display firmware will exist localized to have characters for the country the device is to be sold in, and typically the tabular array differs from country to country. Every bit such, these systems volition potentially display mojibake when loading text generated on a system from a different country. Likewise, many early operating systems do non support multiple encoding formats and thus will finish up displaying mojibake if made to display non-standard text—early versions of Microsoft Windows and Palm Bone for example, are localized on a per-land basis and will just support encoding standards relevant to the country the localized version will be sold in, and will brandish 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 as a default encoding may accomplish a greater degree of interoperability because of its widespread use and astern compatibility with US-ASCII. UTF-8 also has the power to exist directly recognised past a uncomplicated algorithm, and then 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 awarding inside which information technology occurs and the causes of it. Two of the most common applications in which mojibake may occur are spider web browsers and word processors. Modern browsers and give-and-take processors often support a broad array of character encodings. Browsers often allow a user to modify their rendering engine's encoding setting on the fly, while discussion processors permit the user to select the appropriate encoding when opening a file. It may take some trial and mistake for users to find the correct encoding.
The problem 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's encoding settings to friction match that of the game. However, changing the system-broad encoding settings tin can besides cause Mojibake in pre-existing applications. In Windows XP or afterward, a user too has the option to apply Microsoft AppLocale, an application that allows the changing of per-awarding locale settings. Yet, irresolute the operating system encoding settings is not possible on earlier operating systems such every bit Windows 98; to resolve this issue on earlier operating systems, a user would have to employ third political party font rendering applications.
Problems in different writing systems [edit]
English language [edit]
Mojibake in English texts by and large occurs in punctuation, such equally em dashes (—), en dashes (–), and curly quotes (",",','), but rarely in graphic symbol text, since virtually encodings agree with ASCII on the encoding of the English alphabet. For instance, the pound sign "£" volition appear every bit "£" if it was encoded past the sender every bit UTF-viii but interpreted past the recipient as CP1252 or ISO 8859-1. If iterated using CP1252, this can atomic number 82 to "£", "£", "ÃÆ'‚£", etc.
Some computers did, in older eras, have vendor-specific encodings which caused mismatch besides for English language text. Commodore brand viii-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 instance of all letters. IBM mainframes utilise the EBCDIC encoding which does not match ASCII at all.
Other Western European languages [edit]
The alphabets of the N Germanic languages, Catalan, Finnish, German language, French, Portuguese and Spanish are all extensions of the Latin alphabet. The boosted characters are typically the ones that become corrupted, making texts simply 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 applicative.
These are languages for which the ISO-8859-ane character set (also known equally Latin 1 or Western) has been in utilise. However, ISO-8859-1 has been obsoleted by two competing standards, the backward uniform Windows-1252, and the slightly altered ISO-8859-15. Both add the Euro sign € and the French œ, but otherwise any defoliation of these iii character sets does not create mojibake in these languages. Furthermore, it is e'er safe to interpret ISO-8859-1 as Windows-1252, and fairly safe to interpret it every bit ISO-8859-xv, in particular with respect to the Euro sign, which replaces the rarely used currency sign (¤). All the same, with the advent of UTF-8, mojibake has get more common in certain scenarios, e.g. exchange of text files betwixt UNIX and Windows computers, due to UTF-viii'southward incompatibility with Latin-1 and Windows-1252. Only UTF-8 has the ability to be directly recognised by a elementary algorithm, and then that well written software should exist able to avert mixing UTF-8 up with other encodings, so this was nearly mutual when many had software not supporting UTF-8. Most of these languages were supported past 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 not compatible all the same.
In Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and German, vowels are rarely repeated, and information technology is ordinarily obvious when one character gets corrupted, e.g. the second letter in "kärlek" ( kärlek , "beloved"). This way, even though the reader has to guess between å, ä and ö, nearly all texts remain legible. Finnish text, on the other hand, does feature repeating vowels in words like hääyö ("wedding night") which can sometimes render text very hard to read (e.g. hääyö appears every bit "hääyö"). Icelandic and Faroese take ten and viii perchance confounding characters, respectively, which thus can make information technology more difficult to guess corrupted characters; Icelandic words like þjóðlöð ("outstanding hospitality") become about entirely unintelligible when rendered as "þjóðlöð".
In German, Buchstabensalat ("letter salad") is a mutual term for this phenomenon, and in Spanish, deformación (literally deformation).
Some users transliterate their writing when using a reckoner, either past omitting the problematic diacritics, or by using digraph replacements (å → aa, ä/æ → ae, ö/ø → oe, ü → ue etc.). Thus, an author might write "ueber" instead of "über", which is standard exercise in High german when umlauts are not available. The latter practise seems to exist meliorate tolerated in the German language sphere than in the Nordic countries. For instance, in Norwegian, digraphs are associated with archaic Danish, and may be used jokingly. Even so, digraphs are useful in advice with other parts of the world. As an example, the Norwegian football game player Ole Gunnar Solskjær had his name spelled "SOLSKJAER" on his back when he played for Manchester United.
An artifact of UTF-8 misinterpreted as ISO-8859-1, "Ring meg nÃ¥" (" Band meg nå "), was seen in an SMS scam raging in Norway in June 2014.[5]
| Swedish instance: | Smörgås (open sandwich) | |
|---|---|---|
| File encoding | Setting in browser | Upshot |
| MS-DOS 437 | ISO 8859-i | Sm"rg†s |
| ISO 8859-1 | Mac Roman | SmˆrgÂs |
| UTF-eight | ISO 8859-1 | Smörgås |
| 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 continued to any network during the mid- to belatedly-1980s, at that place were different character encodings for every language with diacritical characters (come across ISO/IEC 8859 and KOI-viii), often as well varying by operating system.
Hungarian [edit]
Hungarian is another affected language, which uses the 26 basic English characters, plus the accented forms á, é, í, ó, ú, ö, ü (all present in the Latin-1 grapheme set), plus the two characters ő and ű, which are not in Latin-one. These two characters can be correctly encoded in Latin-2, Windows-1250 and Unicode. Before Unicode became common in eastward-mail service clients, e-mails containing Hungarian text oftentimes had the messages ő and ű corrupted, sometimes to the point of unrecognizability. Information technology is common to respond to an e-mail rendered unreadable (see examples below) by grapheme mangling (referred to as "betűszemét", meaning "letter garbage") with the phrase "Árvíztűrő tükörfúrógép", a nonsense phrase (literally "Overflowing-resistant mirror-drilling machine") containing all absolute characters used in Hungarian.
Examples [edit]
| Source encoding | Target encoding | Result | Occurrence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hungarian instance | ÁRVÍZTŰRŐ TÜKÖRFÚRÓGÉP árvíztűrő tükörfúrógép | Characters in cherry-red are incorrect and do not match the top-left example. | |
| CP 852 | CP 437 | ╡RV╓ZTδRè TÜKÖRFΘRαGÉP árvízt√rï tükörfúrógép | This was very common in DOS-era when the text was encoded by the Primal European CP 852 encoding; notwithstanding, the operating system, a software or printer used the default CP 437 encoding. Please note that small-instance messages are mainly correct, exception with ő (ï) and ű (√). Ü/ü is correct considering CP 852 was made compatible with High german. Present occurs mainly on printed prescriptions and cheques. |
| CWI-2 | CP 437 | ÅRVìZTÿRº TÜKÖRFùRòGÉP árvíztûrô tükörfúrógép | The CWI-2 encoding was designed so that the text remains adequately well-readable even if the display or printer uses the default CP 437 encoding. This encoding was heavily used in the 1980s and early 1990s, simply nowadays 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. Simply 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, information technology occurs often on webpages or fifty-fifty in printed media. |
| CP 852 | Windows-1250 | µRVÖZTëRŠ TšOne thousand™RFéRŕK 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┌RËGrand╔P ßrvÝztűr§ tŘthousand÷rf˙rˇgÚp | Central European DOS encoding is used instead of Windows encoding. The utilise of ű is correct. |
| Quoted-printable | 7-chip ASCII | =C1RV=CDZT=DBR=D5 T=DCGrand=D6RF=DAR=D3G=C9P =E1rv=EDzt=FBr=F5 t=FCchiliad=F6rf=FAr=F3g=E9p | Mainly caused past wrongly configured mail servers but may occur in SMS messages on some jail cell-phones also. |
| UTF-eight | Windows-1252 | ÃRVÃZTÅ°RÅ TÃœKÖRFÚRÃ"ChiliadÉP árvÃztűrÅ' tükörfúróone thousandép | Mainly acquired past wrongly configured web services or webmail clients, which were non tested for international usage (equally the problem remains concealed for English texts). In this example the actual (often generated) content is in UTF-eight; however, it is not configured in the HTML headers, and so the rendering engine displays it with the default Western encoding. |
Smoothen [edit]
Prior to the creation of ISO 8859-ii in 1987, users of diverse computing platforms used their ain character encodings such as AmigaPL on Amiga, Atari Order on Atari ST and Masovia, IBM CP852, Mazovia and Windows CP1250 on IBM PCs. Shine companies selling early DOS computers created their own mutually-incompatible means to encode Smooth characters and simply reprogrammed the EPROMs of the video cards (typically CGA, EGA, or Hercules) to provide hardware code pages with the needed glyphs for Polish—arbitrarily located without reference to where other computer sellers had placed them.
The situation began to ameliorate when, after pressure from bookish and user groups, ISO 8859-2 succeeded as the "Internet standard" with express support of the dominant vendors' software (today largely replaced by Unicode). With the numerous problems caused by the variety of encodings, even today some users tend to refer to Polish diacritical characters as krzaczki ([kshach-kih], lit. "niggling 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 on Russian federation developed KOI encodings ( Kod Obmena Informatsiey , Код Обмена Информацией , which translates to "Code for Information Substitution"). This began with Cyrillic-but vii-bit KOI7, based on ASCII just with Latin and some other characters replaced with Cyrillic letters. Then came 8-fleck KOI8 encoding that is an ASCII extension which encodes Cyrillic letters only with high-bit set octets corresponding to 7-bit codes from KOI7. It is for this reason that KOI8 text, even Russian, remains partially readable after stripping the eighth 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 and then passed through the high bit stripping process, end upwards rendered as "[KOLA RUSSKOGO qZYKA". Eventually KOI8 gained different flavors for Russian and Bulgarian (KOI8-R), Ukrainian (KOI8-U), Belarusian (KOI8-RU) and even Tajik (KOI8-T).
Meanwhile, in the West, Code page 866 supported Ukrainian and Belarusian likewise every bit Russian/Bulgarian in MS-DOS. For Microsoft Windows, Code Folio 1251 added support for Serbian and other Slavic variants of Cyrillic.
Most recently, the Unicode encoding includes lawmaking 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 same encoding organisation. Failure to do this produced unreadable gibberish whose specific advent varied depending on the exact combination of text encoding and font encoding. For example, attempting to view not-Unicode Cyrillic text using a font that is limited to the Latin alphabet, or using the default ("Western") encoding, typically results in text that consists virtually 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, only KOI8 has uppercase messages 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 Www, both KOI8 and codepage 1251 were common. As of 2017, one tin still see HTML pages in codepage 1251 and, rarely, KOI8 encodings, too as Unicode. (An estimated ane.7% of all web pages worldwide – all languages included – are encoded in codepage 1251.[vii]) Though the HTML standard includes the power to specify the encoding for any given web page in its source,[viii] this is sometimes neglected, forcing the user to switch encodings in the browser manually.
In Bulgarian, mojibake is ofttimes chosen majmunica ( маймуница ), significant "monkey's [alphabet]". In Serbian, it is called đubre ( ђубре ), pregnant "trash". Unlike the erstwhile USSR, South Slavs never used something like KOI8, and Code Page 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 similar to (although incompatible with) CP866.
| Russian case: | Кракозябры ( krakozyabry , garbage characters) | |
|---|---|---|
| File encoding | Setting in browser | Result |
| MS-DOS 855 | ISO 8859-ane | Æá ÆÖóÞ¢áñ |
| KOI8-R | ISO 8859-one | ëÒÁËÏÚÑÂÒÙ |
| UTF-eight | KOI8-R | п я─п╟п╨п╬п╥я▐п╠я─я▀ |
Yugoslav languages [edit]
Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian (the dialects of the Yugoslav Serbo-Croatian language) and Slovenian add to the bones Latin alphabet the letters š, đ, č, ć, ž, and their capital 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 strange names, as well). All of these letters are divers in Latin-2 and Windows-1250, while only some (š, Š, ž, Ž, Đ) exist in the usual OS-default Windows-1252, and are there considering of some other languages.
Although Mojibake can occur with whatsoever of these characters, the messages that are not included in Windows-1252 are much more prone to errors. Thus, fifty-fifty present, "šđčćž ŠĐČĆŽ" is frequently displayed as "šðèæž ŠÐÈÆŽ", although ð, è, æ, È, Æ are never used in Slavic languages.
When confined to basic ASCII (about user names, for example), common replacements are: š→s, đ→dj, č→c, ć→c, ž→z (capital forms analogously, with Đ→Dj or Đ→DJ depending on discussion case). All of these replacements introduce ambiguities, so reconstructing the original from such a form is usually washed manually if required.
The Windows-1252 encoding is important considering the English versions of the Windows operating system are virtually widespread, non localized ones.[ citation needed ] The reasons for this include a relatively pocket-size and fragmented market, increasing the toll of loftier quality localization, a high degree of software piracy (in plough caused by high cost of software compared to income), which discourages localization efforts, and people preferring English versions of Windows and other software.[ citation needed ]
The bulldoze to differentiate Croatian from Serbian, Bosnian from Croatian 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 figurer terminology originating in English language. In the end, people use adopted English words ("kompjuter" for "computer", "kompajlirati" for "compile," etc.), and if they are unaccustomed to the translated terms may non empathize what some choice in a carte is supposed to do based on the translated phrase. Therefore, people who understand English language, also as those who are accustomed to English language terminology (who are almost, because English terminology is as well mostly taught in schools considering of these issues) regularly choose 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 Windows let the lawmaking page to exist changed (older versions require special English language versions with this support), but this setting can be and frequently was incorrectly set. For example, Windows 98 and Windows Me can exist set to nearly not-correct-to-left single-byte code pages including 1250, merely only at install time.
Caucasian languages [edit]
The writing systems of certain languages of the Caucasus region, including the scripts of Georgian and Armenian, may produce mojibake. This problem is specially acute in the case of ArmSCII or ARMSCII, a gear up of obsolete grapheme encodings for the Armenian alphabet which accept been superseded by Unicode standards. ArmSCII is not widely used because of a lack of support in the computer manufacture. 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 1 of the encodings for East Asian languages. With this kind of mojibake more than one (typically two) characters are corrupted at once, e.1000. "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 short words starting with å, ä or ö such as "än" (which becomes "舅"). Since two messages are combined, the mojibake likewise seems more than random (over 50 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 particular discussion lengths, such as the sentence "Bush hid the facts", may be misinterpreted.
Vietnamese [edit]
In Vietnamese, the miracle is called chữ ma , loạn mã can occur when figurer effort to encode diacritic character defined in Windows-1258, TCVN3 or VNI to UTF-8. Chữ ma was mutual 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 | Result |
| Windows-1258 | UTF-viii | Trăthousand northwardăm trong cõi ngÆ°á»i ta |
| TCVN3 | UTF-8 | Tr¨m n¨m trong câi ngêi ta |
| VNI (Windows) | UTF-viii | Traêm naêyard 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 Nippon due to the numerous different encodings that be for Japanese text. Aslope Unicode encodings like UTF-8 and UTF-16, there are other standard encodings, such as Shift-JIS (Windows machines) and EUC-JP (UNIX systems). Mojibake, besides as being encountered by Japanese users, is also ofttimes encountered by not-Japanese when attempting to run software written for the Japanese marketplace.
Chinese [edit]
In Chinese, the aforementioned phenomenon is called Luàn mǎ (Pinyin, Simplified Chinese 乱码 , Traditional Chinese 亂碼 , significant 'chaotic lawmaking'), and can occur when computerised text is encoded in one Chinese character encoding only is displayed using the incorrect encoding. When this occurs, it is often possible to ready the issue by switching the character encoding without loss of data. The situation is complicated considering of the existence of several Chinese character encoding systems in utilize, the most common ones being: Unicode, Big5, and Guobiao (with several backward uniform versions), and the possibility of Chinese characters being encoded using Japanese encoding.
Information technology is piece of cake 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 ruby-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. About of them are extremely uncommon and not in practical apply in modernistic 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. Hands identifiable because of spaces between every several characters. |
An boosted trouble is caused when encodings are missing characters, which is common with rare or antiquated characters that are nonetheless 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-PRC Premier Zhu Rongji (Chinese: 朱镕基; pinyin: Zhū Róngjī )'s "镕" missing in GB2312, copyright symbol "©" missing in GBK.[ix]
Newspapers take dealt with this problem in diverse ways, including using software to combine ii existing, similar characters; using a picture of the personality; or simply substituting a homophone for the rare grapheme in the hope that the reader would exist able to make the correct inference.
Indic text [edit]
A similar effect can occur in Brahmic or Indic scripts of South asia, used in such Indo-Aryan or Indic languages equally Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu), Bengali, Panjabi, Marathi, and others, even if the character set employed is properly recognized by the application. This is because, in many Indic scripts, the rules past which individual letter of the alphabet symbols combine to create symbols for syllables may not exist properly understood by a computer missing the appropriate software, even if the glyphs for the individual alphabetic character forms are available.
One case of this is the quondam Wikipedia logo, which attempts to bear witness the character analogous to "wi" (the beginning syllable of "Wikipedia") on each of many puzzle pieces. The puzzle slice meant to bear the Devanagari character for "wi" instead used to display the "wa" grapheme followed by an unpaired "i" modifier vowel, easily recognizable equally mojibake generated past a calculator not configured to display Indic text.[x] The logo as redesigned every bit of May 2010[ref] has fixed these errors.
The idea of Plain Text requires the operating organisation 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) beyond all operating systems. For instance, the 'reph', the brusk form for 'r' is a diacritic that normally goes on peak of a plain letter. Even so, it is wrong to go on top of some letters like 'ya' or 'la' in specific contexts. For Sanskritic words or names inherited past mod 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 result from their specific rules, it is not put on summit, such every bit the word करणाऱ्या, IAST: karaṇāryā, a stalk form of the mutual word करणारा/री, IAST: karaṇārā/rī, in the Marathi linguistic communication.[xi] But it happens in most operating systems. This appears to be a fault of internal programming of the fonts. In Mac OS and iOS, the muurdhaja l (dark l) and 'u' combination and its long form both yield wrong shapes.[ citation needed ]
Some Indic and Indic-derived scripts, nigh 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 only 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 as ad hoc font encodings.[17] With the advent of mobile phones, mobile vendors such as Samsung and Huawei simply replaced the Unicode compliant system fonts with Zawgyi versions.[14]
Due to these ad hoc encodings, communications between users of Zawgyi and Unicode would return as garbled text. To become effectually this event, content producers would make posts in both Zawgyi and Unicode.[xviii] Myanmar government has designated 1 October 2019 as "U-Day" to officially switch to Unicode.[xiii] The total transition is estimated to take ii years.[nineteen]
African languages [edit]
In certain writing systems of Africa, unencoded text is unreadable. Texts that may produce mojibake include those from the Horn of Africa such 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 Republic of malaŵi and the Mandombe alphabet was created for the Democratic Republic of the congo, but these are not generally supported. Various other writing systems native to West Africa nowadays similar problems, such as the Northward'Ko alphabet, used for Manding languages in Republic of guinea, and the Vai syllabary, used in Republic of liberia.
Arabic [edit]
Another affected linguistic communication is Arabic (see below). The text becomes unreadable when the encodings do not friction match.
Examples [edit]
| File encoding | Setting in browser | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Arabic example: |  (Universal Declaration of Homo Rights) | |
| Browser rendering: | الإعلان العالمى لحقوق الإنسان | |
| UTF-viii | 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-v | 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 article do not have UTF-8 as browser setting, because UTF-eight is easily recognisable, then if a browser supports UTF-8 information technology should recognise information technology automatically, and not endeavour to interpret something else as UTF-viii.
See too [edit]
- Code point
- Replacement character
- Substitute character
- Newline – The conventions for representing the line break differ between Windows and Unix systems. Though about software supports both conventions (which is footling), software that must preserve or display the deviation (e.m. version command systems and information comparison tools) tin can get substantially more than difficult to use if not adhering to 1 convention.
- Byte order marker – The about in-ring way to store the encoding together with the data – prepend it. This is past intention invisible to humans using compliant software, only will past pattern exist perceived as "garbage characters" to incompliant software (including many interpreters).
- HTML entities – An encoding of special characters in HTML, mostly optional, simply required for certain characters to escape interpretation every bit markup.
While failure to apply this transformation is a vulnerability (come across cantankerous-site scripting), applying it besides many times results in garbling of these characters. For instance, the quotation mark
"becomes",","and so on. - Bush hid the facts
References [edit]
- ^ a b King, Ritchie (2012). "Will unicode soon be the universal code? [The Data]". IEEE Spectrum. 49 (7): 60. doi:10.1109/MSPEC.2012.6221090.
- ^ WINDISCHMANN, Stephan (31 March 2004). "curl -v linux.ars (Internationalization)". Ars Technica . Retrieved 5 October 2018.
- ^ "Guidelines for extended attributes". 2013-05-17. Retrieved 2015-02-15 .
- ^ "Unicode mailinglist on the Eudora electronic mail 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 1-59921-039-8.
- ^ "Usage of Windows-1251 for websites".
- ^ "Declaring grapheme encodings in HTML".
- ^ "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.
- ^ Cohen, Noam (June 25, 2007). "Some Errors Defy Fixes: A Typo in Wikipedia'southward 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-Day", when Myanmar officially will prefer the new organisation.... Microsoft and Apple tree helped other countries standardize years ago, only Western sanctions meant Myanmar lost out.
- ^ 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 after Zawgyi, circumscribed the rendering problem by adding extra lawmaking points that were reserved for Myanmar's ethnic languages. Not simply does the re-mapping forestall future indigenous linguistic communication support, it as well results in a typing organization that can be disruptive and inefficient, even for experienced users. ... Huawei and Samsung, the ii most popular smartphone brands in Myanmar, are motivated only past capturing the largest market share, which ways they back up Zawgyi out of the box.
- ^ a b Sin, Thant (7 September 2019). "Unified under ane font system as Myanmar prepares to drift from Zawgyi to Unicode". Rising Voices . Retrieved 24 December 2019.
Standard Myanmar Unicode fonts were never mainstreamed different the private and partially Unicode compliant Zawgyi font. ... Unicode will improve natural language processing
- ^ "Why Unicode is Needed". Google Lawmaking: Zawgyi Project . Retrieved 31 Oct 2013.
- ^ "Myanmar Scripts and Languages". Frequently Asked Questions. Unicode Consortium. Retrieved 24 December 2019.
"UTF-8" technically does not apply to advertising hoc font encodings such equally Zawgyi.
- ^ LaGrow, Nick; Pruzan, Miri (September 26, 2019). "Integrating autoconversion: Facebook's path from Zawgyi to Unicode - Facebook Applied science". Facebook Engineering. Facebook. Retrieved 25 December 2019.
Information technology makes communication on digital platforms difficult, every bit content written in Unicode appears garbled to Zawgyi users and vice versa. ... In social club to better attain their audiences, content producers in Myanmar frequently post in both Zawgyi and Unicode in a single postal service, not to mention English or other languages.
- ^ Saw Yi Nanda (21 November 2019). "Myanmar switch to Unicode to take two years: app developer". The Myanmar Times . Retrieved 24 December 2019.
External links [edit]
solorzanojoyinewerhat.blogspot.com
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojibake
Postar um comentário for "2. what does it mean to say that p is “proportional†to t?"