Talk:Urdu keyboard

Image

Can someone provide an image of the layout? There are some basic template that can be used from computer keyboard. gren グレン 15:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There's now an image of the layout at the top of the page. There's also a photo of an alternative phonetic layout at the bottom. However, the majority of the article discusses the evolution of the layout over time and without images (or even tables) of the various layouts, it's hard to see what the vague changes referenced in the article really meant in practice. —Karatorian (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

UNICODE

Is Urdu expressable in UNICODE? Has that had any impact on Urdu keyboards? Might it in the future? DelRayVA 192.31.106.34 20:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Urdu predominantly uses the Arabic Unicode standards. Basic structure of Urdu unicode was standardised in 2000 [1]. However, issues on additional letters and characters are probably still in progress.--IsleScape^Talk 12:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, all the basic letters for Urdu exist in Unicode. (Unicode encodes the Arabic script inconsistently and poorly, but well enough to use.) The current stumbling block is that Urdu readers strongly prefer the Nastaʿlīq style (analogous to the long German preference for Fraktur), which was and is extremely difficult to design fonts for. InPage is the only program that could produce Nastaʿlīq text until recently, and it doesn't use Unicode, so Urdu writers didn't bother with Unicode. Nowadays we have freely available Nastaʿlīq Unicode fonts, Nafees Nastaleeq, Jameel Noori Nastaleeq, Pak Nastaleeq, etc., but they don't come standard with Windows and have some problems. I hear Microsoft is working on this, but it takes time for habits to change. 156.56.175.221 (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hindustani Orthgraphy and Romanisation

I am removing links because:

1. Hindustani orthography lists two different scripts. Since standard Urdu keyboards only use Perso-Arabic script, it's more relevant to put a direct link to the right article instead of causing any confusion. Hence reverting it back to Perso-Arabic script
2. Uddin and Begum Urdu-Hindustani Romanization is ambiguous. Citation to the only reference is incomplete. Not notable.--IslesCape^Talk 12:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to discuss the issue. I'm fine with your removal of the links. Thanks for providing your reasons. However, do you think some link to an article on the Romanisation of Urdu would be relevant? Perhaps a link Roman Urdu if not Uddin and Begum Urdu-Hindustani Romanization? Because of globalisation, Urdu, like other languages, is often written in the Roman script. It is also written this way in order to allow Hindi and Urdu speakers to communicate in writing. Your opinions would be greatly appreciated. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

redundant notes

most of the notes just refer to references in the section below in Author date format:

Zia (1999a)
Dil (1962)
Afzal (1997)
Zia (1996)
Zia (1999b)

Should these be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irtapil (talk • contribs) 00:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)