Talk:ISO 233

Untitled 1

I am having trouble learning how to write my name "Shawn Herman", can some one help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.78.89 (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

شون هيرمان — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.96.173 (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

CAPITAL letters?

As far as I know there are no B, K, L ... in ISO 233. I thinks you should do away with at column. Does someone have the transliteration for hamza below resp. إ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.96.173 (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Untitled 2

Where is the thal? (the deep th sound?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.22.164 (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Should the newly created article ISO 233-2 be merged into this article? --Boson (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, and there has been no objection. So I'll just go ahead and do it. — Sebastian 00:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It was in my view a bad idea, as ISO 23:1984 is intended for Arabic script without regard to the language written with it, it could be French, English, Russian, Tamazigh, Al jamiado etc.

ISO 233-2 is indeed a surgeon of ISO 233, but is written in a way that is self suffient. ISO 233- is intended for texts written in Arabic language, and is referring to the rules of Arabic grammar. ISO 233-2 is not suitable for romanizing Arabic characters except used in Arabic language. The word "simplified" mentionned in the title of ISO 233-2 does not mean that ISO 233-2 is easier to implement, but rather that with a correct interpretation of Arabic grammar(which is far from simple), romanization according to ISO 233-2 brings a romanized text that is simpler to index.

Focusing solely on the transliteration tables without paying attention to the guidelines of the standards leads to misinterpretation of those standards and I would find sound to restore the previous separation between ISO 233 and ISO 233-2. Pinji (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)