Talk:Shift JIS

message: can someone put this in english for the common man?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.224.182 (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, just take a look at Evil. Jpatokal (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Language...

message: Why has Shift-JIS no code points for umlauts assigned? --84.61.71.163 15:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Japanese typers rarely have a need to type the words "Mötley Crüe". You could use ISO-2022-JP-2, which has a mechanism to switch to ISO-8859-1 (includes umlauts), but you might as well just use UTF-8. --150.216.151.171 17:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Umlauts 

message: At least Firefox interprets 0x5C in Shift_JIS as '\' and not '¥'. I suspect this is because the '\' character is used to escape characters in Javascript, so having an encoding without a representation of that character would be a security problem. JeffreyYasskin 21:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you would be wrong to suspect that. 0x5c is commonly used as a special character, regardless of what symbol that character value actually represents. So on a Japanese computer you have filesystem paths like "C:¥Program Files¥", the DOS prompt looks like "C:¥>" and a Hello World program might contain the line 'cout << "Hello World!¥n";'. Shinobu 05:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Browser interpretation of 0x5C 

message: Hi, I wrote a large portion of this article (before I had a sign-in) and that is what I meant when I wrote it. Sadly I could not remember where I read it, but I've done some googling so I'll add a link that backs up what I said. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tim Band (talk • contribs) 15:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ASCII coporation: not a typo 

message: JIS X 0201:1997 (for the single-byte characters) and JIS X 0208:1997 (for the double byte characters)
What does :1997 mean? The linked articles don't yield a clue, and both state that the standards were set in 1969 and 1990(?). Were they revised in 1997? If so, why didn't they simply get a new four-digit number? Shinobu 16:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1969 and 1983, yes; AFAIK there are no later revisions.  The one you're thinking of in 1990 is JIS-X-0212 Tacitus Prime 11:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bit late to the discussion, but to avoid confusing future readers: at the time of this writing, JIS X 0208 has four versions (JIS C 6226-1978, JIS C 6226-1983, JIS X 0208-1990, JIS X 0208:1997). JIS X 0201 has three (JIS C 6220-1969, JIS C 6220-1976, JIS X 0201:1997). The colon before the 1997 instead of a hyphen is just a change in convention (and technically, so is the “X” classifier; that was a new category created in 1987 for information processing and such, because while it may have made sense to put that under “Electronic and Electrical Engineering” back when they were first writing these standards, it became a field in its own right). This statement is correct as stands, and at some point in the next few weeks months years, this should all be fleshed out their own, appropriate articles. -BRPXQZME (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  :1997 - what does that mean? 

message: The article says "the competing 8-bit format EUC-JP, which does not support halfwidth katakana" - but EUC does indeed have the halfwidth katakana (upper half of JIS-X-0201:1976) in G2 (i.e., as two-byte sequences 0x8E 0xA1 .. 0x8E 0xDF)
Tacitus Prime 11:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article means that it doesn't support single-byte encoding of halfwidth katakana. I've added a clarification. Jpatokal 12:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EUC-JP 

message: "it is recommended that Unicode be used instead"
recommended by unicode.org, isn't it? Should be added then!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.91.141 (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendation or lobbying? 

message: I've looked at this for a while now, and I'm pretty sure that the formula for s_2 in the odd j_1 should have \lfloor j_2/96 \rfloor rather than \lfloor j_2/95 \rfloor.  Isn't the purpose of that skip to avoid the non-printing DELETE character (code 127) in the second byte?  As it stands it skips code 126 instead, which doesn't make sense.  Uranographer (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the second time the formula has been challenged in the past month. It's completely unsourced and we have no idea where it came from. I propose removing it entirely unless it can be reliably sourced. Without sourcing, it is original research. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but it's really just a mathematical way of describing the Shift JIS encoding procedure, so in that sense it really isn't very extensive original research.  (Although, I've seen people get papers published with about as much content!)  I think it's probably okay to leave it.  I won't argue, though, if you want to remove it. Uranographer (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like I introduced the error when I mis-simplified the previous contorted expression in the section above. Floor(j_2/95) was only used if j_2 ≥ 96. Since floor() will then be one, the simpler version is floor(j_2/96) without the conditional (or 1 if j_2 ≥ 96 and 0 otherwise). I thought the expression was just doing the same thing twice. Glrx (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, it's easy to do.  I've been coding and writing this stuff up all day and I get those simplifications right about half the time--and that's if I'm lucky.96.18.211.87 (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

text: (Guess I had logged out--that was me Uranographer (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formula Error 

message: On October 30 2011 user BIL added:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shift_JIS&diff=458095114&oldid=455096120 "The same thing is valid for UTF-8 which is a world standard, better supported by software, and is predicted to fully replace Shift-JIS and EUC-JP."
On December 8 2010 user 131.107.0.81 added:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shift_JIS&diff=401316723&oldid=396679673
"... , conflicting with some code points. This is one reason why applications are recommended to use Unicode such as UTF-8 or UTF-16 instead."
There was no explanation or citation. I added "By whom?" markers in May 2013. I'll be happy if someone cites some respected authority. Until then, these UTF-8 endorsements don't belong. I removed them. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing "UTF-8 is recommended" 

message: The JIS X 0213 article links to Shift JIS-2004 but Shift JIS-2004 redirects here. It is *not* the same encoding and no information about Shift JIS-2004 is present on this page. 58.173.133.147 (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable redirect 

message: I think there should be some sort of clarification that the ASCII company is unrelated to the ASCII character encoding scheme within the article. Possibly something like ASCII, unrelated to the encoding scheme, and then continue on with the article after the comma. 207.131.207.202 (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good point, particularly since ASCII (the encoding) is mentioned so often. I can't think of a way to cleanly explain it directly in the lead, so I'll add a footnote shortly. Thanks, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and added a footnote; my wording is a little too instructive for my taste but that's all I got. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ASCII company confusion