2006/7/20, Gábor Farkas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote: > > On 7/16/06, gabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> i think we do not need to discuss japanese at all. after all, there's no > >> transliteration for kanji. so it's imho pointless to argue about > >> kana-transliteration, when you cannot transliterate kanji. > > > > If you mean that you cannot easily deduce whether the kanji for moon 月 > > should be transliterated according to the reading 'tsuki' or 'getsu', > > then yes, you are correct. But you *can* transliterate them according > > to their on or kun reading. > > > > yes, you are correct on that. > but on the other hand, what's the meaning in doing a plain on/kun > reading-based transliteration? :-) > > and also, some kanjis have a lot of on/kun readings... which one will > you use? > > at least for me it seems that a transliteration scheme should at least > keep the words readable. now take a japanese word with 2 kanjis. how > would you propose to transliterate it to still keep the meaning?
We can not apply ON or KUN for kanaji by right way automatically. It has no exact rule. And I don't think slug is just for human. It's for computers too. Search-engines or some technologies may understand IDNA/Punycode(thanx Antonio!). #Google can understand IDNA already. Japanese kanji should be translated into Punycode. If slug must keep the meaning for human, you don't need care about Japanese. It's impossible for Japanese. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
