This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This statement is either self contradictory or ambiguous. By extinction is it meant that soon no one will want to use kana input? Or is it meant that soon software will not support it?
Most problems are not unique to Japanese, but common to other DBCS languages. Although the specific solutions are unique to Japanese.
Romanization has little to do with problem, it's just a way of input method.
Strictly speaking, Unicode is not a character encoding, it's a coded character set.
Whether it corresponds to Chinese chracter is not problem (unless it is in relation to Unicode).
Pronunciation has nothing to do with problem.
This has nothing to do with the problem since Unicode contains all JIS chracter set. The problem is Unicode uses different criteria of coding rule.
This paragraph doesn't make sense since it has nothing to do with ancient Japanese language, but rather, a problem of support of legacy data.
Text input has little to do with encoding, it is a matter of selecting a character.
What does standard of standard keyboard mean? Perhaps standard roman alphabet keyboard? Mobile phone keypad is another way of input, by the way.
I think kana input is also popular.
I don't understand why Oyayubi shift has to be mentioned here, while kana input is not mentioned at all.
Is gaiji really used along with Unicode? Curious since I'm not sure about this.
omitted characters are written with similar or simpler characters in their place. Is this correct? Shouldn't it be As a result, those chracters need to be replaced with similar or simpler characters.?
Fukumoto 18:00, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The hastingsresearch unicode page [2] misrepresents the issues a lot. There's a rebuttal [3]. The article should be adjusted to remove the anti-Unicode bias which is wholly without basis. -- 130.233.18.89 03:41, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps a frivolous inquiry, but entering Japanese seems combersome compared to English. Can someone familiar with both forms tell me which is faster to input? I'm guessing that Japanese takes much longer to input than the equaivalent English, does this have effects on society, eg: are Japonese school children's assignments hand-written rather than computed? -- Commander Keane 11:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see a section on the history of Japanese computing. I've seen a (copyrighted, sadly) photo of an early kanji-capable keyboard, which had to be used with a stylus because there were so many keys. This article may be helpful. — Gwalla | Talk 20:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The link to FEP goes to an internal wikipedia disambiguation page, and the meanings listed for that doesn't include one that matches what FEP should mean.
Should the reference to that page be removed?
The following line can be found in
this revision of this article (latest revision as of writing, link provided for reference):
There has been resistance against Unicode in Japan since it is said to be an American invention not Japanese.
Are there any reliable sources to support such an argument? And even if there were reliable sources, is such an argument even necessary in this article? Coming from a Japanese family living in the US, I can see both sides of the issue and I feel such a statement detracts from the educational and, most importantly, neutral nature of an encyclopedia. King Arthur6687 ( talk) 23:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Unicode has left to right and right-to-left control characters. I'm pretty sure it does not yet offer a top-bottom control character, but maybe some coverage on this would be useful for completeness. -- I have browsed 5 pages so far on wikipedia searching for coverage on the topic, and none of them have been sufficient, which to me shows that at least somewhere there should be a more complete coverage of the topic. --— robbiemuffin page talk 12:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
This is true if writing in modern English for native English readers.
As soon as you add the need for IPA equivalent phonetics, is 256 still sufficient ?
The assertion seems to trade on an ambiguity - on the printed page of a typical published novel which itself contains no mathematics, no foreign names ...which is NOT the case of internet documents.
G. Robert Shiplett 10:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Taught Saadinasab ( talk) 16:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This statement is either self contradictory or ambiguous. By extinction is it meant that soon no one will want to use kana input? Or is it meant that soon software will not support it?
Most problems are not unique to Japanese, but common to other DBCS languages. Although the specific solutions are unique to Japanese.
Romanization has little to do with problem, it's just a way of input method.
Strictly speaking, Unicode is not a character encoding, it's a coded character set.
Whether it corresponds to Chinese chracter is not problem (unless it is in relation to Unicode).
Pronunciation has nothing to do with problem.
This has nothing to do with the problem since Unicode contains all JIS chracter set. The problem is Unicode uses different criteria of coding rule.
This paragraph doesn't make sense since it has nothing to do with ancient Japanese language, but rather, a problem of support of legacy data.
Text input has little to do with encoding, it is a matter of selecting a character.
What does standard of standard keyboard mean? Perhaps standard roman alphabet keyboard? Mobile phone keypad is another way of input, by the way.
I think kana input is also popular.
I don't understand why Oyayubi shift has to be mentioned here, while kana input is not mentioned at all.
Is gaiji really used along with Unicode? Curious since I'm not sure about this.
omitted characters are written with similar or simpler characters in their place. Is this correct? Shouldn't it be As a result, those chracters need to be replaced with similar or simpler characters.?
Fukumoto 18:00, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The hastingsresearch unicode page [2] misrepresents the issues a lot. There's a rebuttal [3]. The article should be adjusted to remove the anti-Unicode bias which is wholly without basis. -- 130.233.18.89 03:41, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps a frivolous inquiry, but entering Japanese seems combersome compared to English. Can someone familiar with both forms tell me which is faster to input? I'm guessing that Japanese takes much longer to input than the equaivalent English, does this have effects on society, eg: are Japonese school children's assignments hand-written rather than computed? -- Commander Keane 11:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see a section on the history of Japanese computing. I've seen a (copyrighted, sadly) photo of an early kanji-capable keyboard, which had to be used with a stylus because there were so many keys. This article may be helpful. — Gwalla | Talk 20:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The link to FEP goes to an internal wikipedia disambiguation page, and the meanings listed for that doesn't include one that matches what FEP should mean.
Should the reference to that page be removed?
The following line can be found in
this revision of this article (latest revision as of writing, link provided for reference):
There has been resistance against Unicode in Japan since it is said to be an American invention not Japanese.
Are there any reliable sources to support such an argument? And even if there were reliable sources, is such an argument even necessary in this article? Coming from a Japanese family living in the US, I can see both sides of the issue and I feel such a statement detracts from the educational and, most importantly, neutral nature of an encyclopedia. King Arthur6687 ( talk) 23:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Unicode has left to right and right-to-left control characters. I'm pretty sure it does not yet offer a top-bottom control character, but maybe some coverage on this would be useful for completeness. -- I have browsed 5 pages so far on wikipedia searching for coverage on the topic, and none of them have been sufficient, which to me shows that at least somewhere there should be a more complete coverage of the topic. --— robbiemuffin page talk 12:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
This is true if writing in modern English for native English readers.
As soon as you add the need for IPA equivalent phonetics, is 256 still sufficient ?
The assertion seems to trade on an ambiguity - on the printed page of a typical published novel which itself contains no mathematics, no foreign names ...which is NOT the case of internet documents.
G. Robert Shiplett 10:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Taught Saadinasab ( talk) 16:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)