One of my favorite Japanese words is mojibake (文字化け) which literally translates as “character changing.” The term is used to describe an error experienced frequently by computers users who read and write non-Latin scripts — like Japanese. When readers of non-Latin scripts open a document, email, web page, or some other text, text is sometimes displayed mangled and unreadable. Japanese speakers refer to the resulting garbage as “mojibake.” Here’s a great example from the mojibake article in Wikipedia (the image is supposed to be in Japanese and to display the the Mojibake article itself).

The UTF-8-encoded Japanese Wikipedia article for mojibake, as displayed in the Windows-1252 ('ISO-8859-1') encoding.

The problem has been so widespread in Japanese that webpages would often place small images in the top corners of pages that say “mojibake.” If a user cannot read the content on the page, the image links to pages which will try to fix the problem for the user.

From a more technical perspective, mojibake might be better described as, “incorrect character decoding,” and it hints at a largely hidden part of the way our computers handle text that we usually take for granted.

Of course, computers don’t understand Latin or Japanese characters. Instead they operate on bits and bytes — ones and zeros that represent numbers. In order to input or or output text, computer scientists created mappings of letters and characters to numbers represented by bits and bytes. These mappings end up forming a sequence of characters or letters in a particular order often called a character set. To display two letters, a computers might ask for the fifth and tenth characters from a particular set. These character sets are codes; they map numbers (i.e., positions in the list) to letters just as Morse code maps dots and dashes to letters. Letters can be converted to numbers by a computer for storage and then converted back to be redisplayed. The process is called character encoding and decoding and it happens every time a computer inputs or outputs text.

While there may be some natural orderings, (e.g., A through Z), there are many ways to encode or map a set of letters and numbers (e.g., Should one put numbers before letters in the set? Should capital and lowercase letters be interspersed?). The most important computer character encoding is a ASCII which was first defined in 1963 and is the de facto standard for almost all modern computers. It defines 128 characters including the letters and numbers used in English. But ASCII says nothing about how one should encode accented characters in Latin, scientific symbols, or the characters in any other scripts — they are simply not in the list of letters and numbers ASCII provides and no mapping is available. Users of ASCII can only use the characters in the set.

Left with computers unable to represent their languages, many non-English speakers have added to and improved on ASCII to create new encodings — different mappings of bits and bytes to different sets of letters. Japanese text can frequently be found in encodings with obscure technical names likes EUC-JP, ISO-2022-JP, Shift_JIS, and UTF-8. It’s not important to understand how they differ — although I’ll come back to this in a future blog post. It’s merely important to realize that these each represents different ways to map a set of bits and bytes into letters, numbers, and punctuation.

For example The set of bytes that says “文字化け” (the word for “mojibake” in Japanese) encoded in UTF-8 would show up as “��絖�����” in EUC-JP, “������������” in ISO-2022-JP, and “文字化け” in ISO-8859-1. Each of the strings above is a valid decoding of identical data — the same ones and zeros. But of course, only the first is correct and comprehensible by a human. Although the others are displaying the same data, the data is unreadable by humans because it is decoded according to a different character set’s mapping! This is mojibake.

For every scrap of text that a computer shows to or takes from a human, the computer needs to keep track of the encoding the data is in. Every web browser must know the encoding of the page it is receiving and the encoding that it will be displayed to the user in. If the data sent is a different format than the one that will be displayed, the computer must convert the text from one encoding to another. Although we don’t notice it. Encoding metadata is passed along with almost every webpage we read and every email we send. Data is being converted between encodings millions of times each day. We don’t even notice that text is encoded — until it doesn’t decode properly.

Mojibake makes this usually invisible process extremely visible and provides an opportunity to understand that our text is coded — and how. Encoding introduces important limitations — it limits our expression to the things that are listed in pre-defined character sets. Until the creation of an encoding called Unicode, one couldn’t mix Japanese and Thai in the same document; while there were encodings for both, there were no character sets that encoded the letters for both. Apparently, in Chinese, there are older more obscure characters that no computers can encode yet. Computer users simply can’t write these letters on computers. I’ve seen computers users in Ethiopia emailing each other in English because support for Amharic encodings at the time was so poor and uneven! All of these limits, and many more, are part and parcel of our character encoding systems. They become visible only when the usually invisible process of character encoding is thrust into view. Mojibake provides one such opportunity.

2 Replies to “Mojibake”

  1. @parkbench: yes, it is possible, in fact, UTF-X encodings are attempts to fit the whole Unicode Code Point into a single character sheet, problem is, they’re recreating all the problems they’re trying to solve by having utf-8, utf-16, utf-32, etc. They are yet to decide whether they should use the concise yet complex utf-8, or the simple yet bulky utf-32 or something in between like utf-16.

    In utf-8, characters are mapped to 8-bit (1 byte), 16-bit, 24-bit, or 32-bit, the ASCII characters in 8-bit, cryllics and other alphabets in 16-bit, and CJVK (Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Koreanese) characters in 24-bit, while the 32-bit is for other very rarely used characters. The advantage is that since the characters in the 8-bit sections corresponds to ASCII, an utf-8 text that only contain characters in ASCII set can be read by ASCII-only User Agent, and an ASCII text could be read by utf-8 User Agent without special treatment. However, this variable-width behavior is extremely confusing.

    In utf-32, characters are mapped to 32-bit (4 byte), 32-bit is enough to contain the whole Unicode Code Points, so this makes it extremely simple, since there is no variable-length characters. However, by using 32-bit for every characters, this means documents containing latin alphabets (e.g. English) would be 4 times larger, while documents containing CJVK characters would be 2 times larger compared to utf-8.

    utf-16 is a kind of compromise between size and simplicity, which is chaotic in its own way, because it needs to confuse itself with Byte Ordering.

    And I haven’t mentioned that there are also UTF-7 (safe encoding for email transmission since email isn’t very friendly to non-ASCII encodings), utf-ebcdic, Punycode, etc…

    PS: Unicode standard is a high-level standard, they only standardizes mapping of Code Point (e.g. U+A2E4, etc) to glyphs/characters. An encoding is supposed to map bits and bytes (e.g. utf-8, utf-16, Shift_JIS, etc) to Unicode Code Point (in the past a real encoding maps bits and bytes to glyphs and characters directly, creating a hectic chaos in converting between encodings). While a font is supposed to map between glyph and graphical representation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *