Transliteration and word processing in Urdu is becoming under limelight in the last decade. Though there has been an immense addition of word processing features in contemporary word processors for English but as far as Urdu word processing is concerned, the researchers are seen mostly at the side of finding single aspect resolutions or optimization of Urdu language processing problems but tactlessly they give their integration (as one single text editing solution) a very less significance. Integrated solutions for the fulfillment of modern Urdu content editing needs are found to be very fewer and feeble at present. Because of having no compact word processing solution to retort present-day Urdu word processing needs, there is a great need for an Urdu word processor that could be able to justify the contemporary text editing needs of people who can read and write Urdu language.This paper presents features and requirements for a state of the art Unicode based Urdu word processor described as per the present day necessities. It also considers the comparative analysis of the present day word processing solutions, their blemishes, and their strengths over each other and what more can be done in this area to promote Urdu word processing would be described in this paper as well. KEYWORDS: Urdu word processing, Natural Language Processing, Guidelines for Urdu word editor, Urdu Editor.
Figures - uploaded by Uzair Muhammad
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Uzair Muhammad
Content may be subject to copyright.
Discover the world's research
- 20+ million members
- 135+ million publications
- 700k+ research projects
Join for free
J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci., 4(7S)185-192, 2014
© 2014, TextRoad Publication
ISSN: 2090-4274
Journal of Applied Environmental
and Biological Sciences
www.textroad.com
* Corresponding Author: Uzair Muhammad, Faculty of Computing, Riphah International University at Islamabad.
Email: uzair.muahmmad@riphah.edu.pk,
Urdu Word Processor – Standards and Guidelines
Uzair Muhammad, S. Tahir Ali Jan, M. Shahid Sultan, M. Naeem
Faculty of Computing, Riphah International University at Islamabad
Received: September 1, 2014
Accepted: November 13, 2014
ABSTRACT
Transliteration and word processing in Urdu is becoming under limelight in the last decade. Though there
has been an immense addition of word processing features in contemporary word processors for English but
as far as Urdu word processing is concerned, the researchers are seen mostly at the side of finding single
aspect resolutions or optimization of Urdu language processing problems but tactlessly they give their
integration (as one single text editing solution) a very less significance. Integrated solutions for the
fulfillment of modern Urdu content editing needs are found to be very fewer and feeble at present. Because
of having no compact word processing solution to retort present-day Urdu word processing needs, there is a
great need for an Urdu word processor that could be able to justify the contemporary text editing needs of
people who can read and write Urdu language.This paper presents features and requirements for a state of
the art Unicode based Urdu word processor described as per the present day necessities. It also considers the
comparative analysis of the present day word processing solutions, their blemishes, and their strengths over
each other and what more can be done in this area to promote Urdu word processing would be described in
this paper as well.
KEYWORDS: Urdu word processing, Natural Language Processing, Guidelines for Urdu word editor,
Urdu Editor.
1 INTRODUCTION
According to historical analysis, Word Processing first gained popularity in 1971 and people
compelled to think about the paperless office in order to make their repetitive office work easier and faster
[17]. People who started this concept had a primary focus on English language processing features and as
the time passed more and more solutions got added into existing ones to improve them leaving other
languages blurred.
At present, Urdu is spoken by 63.4 million people all over the world [23]. In Pakistan, Urdu is an
official language and only 20% of the total literate population of Pakistan understands English [15]
therefore, the word processor must be in Urdu language so as to get fully comprehended by the native
people and they could be able to take maximum gain of the current technology.
Urdu being a subset of Arabic language has been of great interest for researchers and scholars since its
development. Many problems were answered and still being answered by many researchers encasing
various facets of it Today in this technological era, where office automation [5][6] has caused a stir and
unabridged office work has come in just a single contraption, for the people who have a command over
Urdu language only prefers text editors to be in their native language as this can enhance their productivity
for their routine work in their respective disciplines. Many efforts were made in this regard and companies
came with their proprietary solutions. These solutions are still being used by people but certain limitations
offered by them deter accomplishing their required goals at different levels of usage. There emerges a great
demand for modern word processor that could accommodate modern word processing requirements of the
people whose primary language is Urdu.
Intrinsically, this research is being prompted to standardize the features of a present-day word
processor for Urdu language. With some of the common features found in every existing word processor,
185
Muhammad et al., 2014
we are also mentioning some of the contemporary features which are considered to be assimilated in every
modern word processor.
Next section gives an idea of the domain under the title background and related work and give and
idea of the state of the art in literature and industry. Section 3 proposes some features and standards of
Urdu Word Processor (UWP). Discussion section and comparison of the features goes as section 4. Section
5 mention the future direction and last section is the conclusion.
2 BACKGROUND AND RELATED WORK
Urdu being a subset of Arabic language has been a focus of research since researchers got into the
need of merging and digitizing Urdu language support with computing. With the influx of Unicode (2-byte
character encoding standard), character mapping for Urdu language got evolved and this revolution brought
the courtesy of researchers to reform or optimize the existing solutions and finding solutions to the existing
problems. Few classic problems and their existing solutions depicting various aspects of text editing
paradigm are as follows: OCR (Optical Character Recognition) for Urdu Language has got a tremendous
effort in the last few decades and still is getting on peak. One research proposed a solution irrespective of
the Fonts or special scripts for both offline and online platforms by utilizing their own algorithmic
approach instead of the classic approach to this which is Artificial Neural Network [30]. Another research
developed a solution for the conversion of Urdu Nastaliq Font into Roman Urdu using OCR. In that
proposed technique they are segmenting each character and matching each to their corresponding character
already saved in database [14]. On the other hand, many researches have been proposed regarding English
to Urdu translation amongst which one is an Expert System Based approach. This solution provides an
algorithmic approach which promotes less usage of dictionary lookups [29].
Still these out of many solutions are being optimized and researchers are trying to improve the
digitization of Urdu language in order to make it easy for the future work. Here the problem is that the
researchers are taking each of the solutions in isolation. In other words, no effort has still been initiated to
integrate the basic solutions in order to make a compact and contemporary text editing solution. We are
trying to promote this effort so as to formulate basic text editing needs and integrate them into one single
solution.
Quite a few text editors are available for Urdu-like Unicode compatible languages in the literature.
One editor has been mentioned in [22] for Urdu and Burushaski, and the other one in [29] with the name
"AGHAZ" with algorithms for translation of English into Urdu. The Former editor has dwelled its roots in
literature with the intent to support and preserve the Burushaski language spoken in Northern areas of
Pakistan. This editor provides only few of the basic features of text editing making it really necessary to
improve it. The latter research provides a single aspect of text editor which is "Translation from English to
Urdu". This research instead of providing a compact solution to content editing needs, lays foundations for
single aspect investigation.
There are a few industry products available. The existing solutions would be scrutinized on the basis
of the pros and cons they offer individually.
2.1 InPage® Professional
Inpage V3.0 (stable release) released in 2008, by Concept Software Pvt. Ltd. Its ever first version was
released in 1994. The total number of registered users is more than 1,000,000 in Pakistan [10]. Among the
other features it provides Spell Checking, conversion into PDF, Unicode support and Object operations.
Since this is proprietary software it has a price of US$ 394 (Concept Software, 2013) which makes it costly
for most home users. Similarly it still lacks major features which are required for today's user.This is the
sub heading of the paper. This is the sub heading of the paper. This is the sub heading of the paper. This is
the sub heading of the paper.
186
J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci., 4(7S)185-192, 2014
2.2 UrduEditor
UrduEditor V8.5, released by SummitSoft. The total downloads of this editor are 116,714 (till 11/03/2014)
[27]. It has Unicode support, virtual Urdu On-screen keyboard, with user interface in Urdu. However it
costs US$ 22.
2.3 Nigar Unicode
Nigar Unicode V2.0.1.5, released by AJSoft. The total downloads of this editor are 30,850 (till
11/03/2014) [3]. It is a Freeware and provides Unicode sustenance, spell check functionality and exporting
as image option as well. The odd side of it is that it has no option to export file as PDF (Portable Document
Format), no object operations supported by it, and no blogging at social media sites.
All these editors, available both in industry and literature, provide some basic and advance level
functionality, however, still they are lacking too many features that are requirement of any text editor of the
day to cover the needs of today's user. After a basic comparison of these tools or editors, we can
comprehend that no single solution afford all compulsory features in it and hence, this may also limit one's
ability by lacking basic features. So we need single integrated text editing solution that could live up to
both industry as well as literature echelons.
3 Proposed Standards and Features for Urdu Word Processor
After having a closer look and thorough investigation of different Urdu editors and tools we compiled
and present a list of requirements and features for Urdu Word Processor. Authors are currently developing
an Urdu Word Processors that will provide all the features that have been identified in this study. This
section describes their requirements for the features of the proposed solution Urdu Word Processor (UWP).
Following Table will look around the basic features that are considered to be present in almost all of
the text editing softwares and our proposed solution would integrate them all as well along with other
contemporary features being discussed one by one ahead.
Table 1.Common Features in most Word Processors
Group Features
File New, Open, Save, Save As, WYSIWYG (Print, Print Preview, Print Settings), Exit
Edit Undo/Redo, Copy, Paste, Cut, Select All, Find, Find Next, Replace, Replace All
View Zoom-in/Zoom-out, Status Bar, [any other bars/tools]
Insert Page break, Time and Date, Symbol, Table
Format Align[Left, Right, Center, Justify], Text Decoration [Underline, Bold, Italic], Bullets,
Increase/Decrease Indentation
Text Word Statistics, Spell Checker
Customization GUI Customization
Font Size and Face
With these common features, following are requirements/features that are presented as standard for
any UWP. Most of these features have been incorporated successfully into the UWP, which is under
development. This project, with all the features and standards mentioned in this paper, will be completed
within a couple of months.
3.1 Unicode compatibility
An Urdu Word Processor (UWP) should be able to handle and process Urdu Unicode characters [32].
They are mapped from Arabic range (0600-06FF) Hex, extended Presentation 'A' ranges (FB50-FDFF) Hex
and Presentation 'B' ranges (FE70-FEFF) Hex along with Persian, Sindhi, Pashto, and Kurdish etc.
languages of Iran, Pakistan, and India. The [18] "Urdu Computing Standards: Development of Urdu Zabta
Takhti" would be used for Urdu character sets and keyboard design layout.
For a contemporary word processor, it has to be compatible with Unicode, which covers more than
100 scripts [2]. Modern web and computer languages support Unicode and more than 382 Urdu fonts
online [28] that support Unicode; so the Urdu word processor must support Unicode.
187
Muhammad et al., 2014
3.2 Compatibility with Rich Text Format (RTF)
We intend to use Rich Text Format (RTF) (which supports Unicode, needs to be escaped [7] primarily
which can be converted to various text formats and markup languages like HTML, WordML, and XML etc.
3.3 Email Support
We reckon that there is an immense need that the modern word processors must be able to send the
document via email right from within the editor. It is therefore becoming a core requirement to integrate the
email functionality inside the GUI of the Urdu Word Processor as the patent [11] by Microsoft suggests to
make it uniform with other editors.
3.4 Bi-lingual User Interface (UI)
English is not the first language in Pakistan and therefore typical speakers of Urdu find it difficult to
comprehend menu commands and other message boxes that are in English.It therefore become one of the
core requirement to introduce a bi-lingual User Interface to facilitate users. For this purpose it is
recommended to follow Microsoft's Urdu Style Guide [12] and therefore we would be following it in our
underdeveloped UWP.
3.5 Nastaliq Font as Urdu UI
Urdu language has many writing scripts but commonly used script in Urdu language is Nastaliq [16]
therefore, we would employ Nastaliq font style for the Urdu User Interface so that user finds a familiar font
and a familiar User Interface which will in return increase the productivity of the user.
3.6 PDF file Generation
PDF (Portable Document Format) was first introduced by Adobe in 1993 [1], PDF has become an
open standard for electronic document exchange maintained by the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO). We intend to use "iTextSharp" library to generate the document to PDF.
3.7 Equation Creator
Mathematical Equations are important in different reports and research papers. Even most of the
mathematics books at elementary level are in Urdu. Therefore support to write Mathematical Equation in
UWP is a requirement. We intend to integrate "Math Editor Mini 1.0" [19] which would generate the
equation as an image to be inserted into the editor.
3.8 Publish to Social Media
With over 10-milion users [24] users from Pakistan, there is a need for automated Urdu micro-
blogger for Social Media Websites. UWP shall be able to facilitate its user to publish content to social
media website e.g. Facebook.
3.9 Publish to WordPress
Besides micro-blogging there is a considerable amount (75,187,962) of WordPress powered sites
around the World Wide Web [31], to fulfill the needs of Urdu bloggers we would be integrating the XML-
RPC API for posting articles directly from within the Urdu Word Processor.
3.10 Mail-merge
MicroPro started shipping WordStar in June 1979. After completing most of the code, Barnaby was
joined by Jim Fox, who helped complete the code and wrote the installation program. Barnaby and Fox
continued to improve WordStar through several interim versions. A major innovation was the development
of the Mail Merge program, which allowed the insertion of names and addresses into a WordStar document
from a separate file [5][6].
Mailing same content to a number of receivers can be a cumbersome job which needs to be
automated. We will propose a GUI inside the anticipated editor through which user can either write letters
for different receivers with or without envelope labels or user can send an email using this option.
3.11 Text Art
Using typography and text art we better express our feelings and motives, therefore, for better and
beautiful headings we will offer this feature by inserting the heading as an image for the time being because
of the lack of technology within our resources.
3.12 Word Statistics
Statistics is very important for any word processor, the total number of words, number of lines, and
number of pages etc. is to be shown to the user. This feature is not something ordinary that text editors
188
J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci., 4(7S)185-192, 2014
takes into account rather this is integrated in order to provide aid to the user as he could check the number
of words, lines, or characters he is supposed to write to fulfill the restriction imposed on him/her by some
authority to limit the words to some boundary line. Proposed "Urdu Word Processor" is expected to
accomplish this task by showing total number of characters and number of lines in the "Task-bar" area and
a complete information in a dialog-box.
3.13 Appearance of a certain word in document
It is sometimes crucial to limit certain words in speech or in article; we sometimes cannot directly
count the number of times a certain word is being used in such article/essays. To solve this problem we will
offer a method to count a word appearing inside the document by showing the figure/number with
highlighting all the occurrences of the word.
3.14 Automatic Aerabification (Diacritization) of Urdu Text
Automatic Diacritization1is the unique feature would be provided by Urdu Word Processor as shown
in figure 1. We first intend to gather more than 200,000 words from different Urdu blogs and news
websites and then we will be using "Urdu to ASCII Transliteration system" [8] (which offers Diacritization
of Urdu words) to store the diacritized words in the SQLite3 database.
We will use database because the "Urdu to ASCII transliteration system" was taking too long to
process words which apparently would make the process difficult for the end users.
Figure. 1. Automatic Aerabification.
3.15 Urdu to Roman-Urdu Conversion
Urdu without diacritics is hard to convert to Roman-Urdu, therefore, we will use the same database to
map Urdu words to Diacritized Urdu words and then to Roman. The Urdu words would be converted to
1
Diacritization is the addition of normally unwritten letters which if written with words describe their pronunciations like Zabar َ
◌,
Zair ِ
◌, Paish ُ
◌, Madd~ etc.
189
Muhammad et al., 2014
Roman-Urdu with the help of table mentioned in "Conversion of Urdu nastaliq to Roman-Urdu using
OCR,"[21].
3.16 Print and Print Preview of the document
The ability to Print and Preview a document is an essence of a Word Processor which we reckon that it
should be implemented.
3.17 Phonetic Urdu Keyboard input
Phonetic Keyboard Layout [9] [26] is very popular and easy to use [4] we decided to program the input
facility into the Extended Rich Text Box so that regardless of keyboard layout and language being installed,
the user should be able to type and process Urdu. For this we will extend a regular RichTextBox, so that
when user types "s" and the input language set to Urdu, "س"will be typed, and when user types "S",
"ص "will be inserted.
Here, it is worth mentioning that the RichTextBox or any Text Box, the text direction should be set to
"Right-to-Left" or else the text line will be dis-positioned when English word is being typed inside Urdu, as
figure 2 depicts:
Figure. 2. Urdu Text Dispositioned.
3.18 On-screen Virtual keyboard
A QWERTY virtual keyboard was designed for English while for the convenience of Urdu Users we would
use the famous Phonetic Keyboard Layout [9], our virtual keyboard would also contain a shortcut button
for inserting Symbols and a button for Urdu Keyboard Layout customization.
3.19 Urdu keyboard customization
There come certain occasions when user wants to change a specific key up to his/her ease and desire. We
want to provide this ease of change to increase the user productivity.
3.20 Export document as a Microsoft Word Document
To facilitate our users so they can further use the document in Microsoft Word we used an API to export
the Urdu document in Word document .doc format.
3.21 Export document as HTML document
Urdu Word Processor is not just for publishing and creating text, it can also be used as an HTML editor.
We will provide facility to save the document as formatted HTML file and also to read HTML files.
3.22 Export document as a PNG image
Already in InPage, many of the times, the Urdu text is needed as an image to be published and to be used in
specialized image processing software for flyers etc. We intend to provide this feature so that user could be
able to export the formatted text as a PNG (portable network graphic) image.
3.23 Bi-directional compatibility with the older versions of InPage
InPage is a famous Urdu Text Editor with 1-milion users in Pakistan (InPage). Previous versions of InPage
are also being used very common in Pakistan. Sadly the previous version has only one flaw, it has its own
legacy encoding scheme.
We intend to offer three features to interact with InPage:
1. InPage text can be imported using Paste Special in Urdu Word Processor.
2. InPage legacy file (.inp) can directly be opened in Urdu Word Processor.
Unicode code text from Urdu Word Processor can be converted to the legacy code of InPage and pasted
into InPage.
190
J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci., 4(7S)185-192, 2014
4 DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The features mentioned in table 1 are common in almost all word processors and urdu word
editors/processors are not an exception. Majority of the features proposed in section 3 are not included in
any of the editors mentioned above. The frequency of releasing urdu editors/processors are also very low as
stated in section 2. All the editors take couple of years to release a new version. For example InPage ®,
with more than 1,000,000 registered users in Pakistan [10], is a major stackholder in the domain. Its lattest
version is 2013, which is released after 3-4 years, still lacking majority of the features mentioned above.
The features mentioned in table 1 (the basic one) and the one mentioned in section 3 (the state-of-the-art)
would jointly make an editor to be called state of the art and would fulfill current day needs of office and
home users of Urdu language.
5 Future work
After congregating and assembling the cluster of requirements mentioned above, we intend them to be
more refined and extended with the passage of time. Our motive is to put those aforementioned features
into an Urdu Word Processor to live up to the users' present-day needs regarding word processing. Ahead
in near future, we would be developing word processing application that would cater all these features
hence, would evolve a new breed of word processing application in computing.
6 Conclusion
One cannot deny the need of word processors for the native language as a means to promote culture
and literature. The features we have described for the upcoming word processors are highly demanding and
required by contemporary users. The mentioned features are supposed to be the core elements of any
modern word processor and is a must have requirement for the Urdu Word Processor as well.
REFERENCES
1. Acrobat/PDF History. (2012, December 27). (Adobe Systems Inc.) Retrieved February 3, 2014, from
http://acroeng.adobe.com/wp/?page_id=20.
2. Scripts and Languages. (2013, 9 14). (Unicode Consortium) Retrieved January 31, 2014, from
http://www.unicode.org/cldr/charts/latest/supplemental/scripts_and_languages.html.
3. AJ Soft. (2014, March 11). Nigar Unicode. Retrieved March 11, 2014, from CNET DOWNLOADS:
http://download.cnet.com/Urdu-Nigar-Unicode/3000-2079_4-10871699.html.
4. Becker, D., &Riaz, K. (2002). A study in Urdu corpus construction. Proceedings of the 3rd workshop on
Asian language resources and international standardization-Volume 12, Association for Computational
Linguistics, 12, 1-5.
5. Bergin, T. J. (2006). The Origins of Word Processing Software for Personal Computers: 1976-1985.
IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, 32-47.
6. Bergin, T. J. (2006, October–December). The Origins of Word Processing Software for Personal
Computers: 1976-1985. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, p. 16.
7. Burke, S. M. (July 2003). RTF Pocket Guide. O'Reilly Media.
8. Center for Language Engineering. (2011, August 23). Urdu to ASCII Transliteration System. (Center for
Language Engineering) Retrieved February 3, 2014, from
http://www.cle.org.pk/Downloads/langproc/Transliteration%20Tools/Transliteration%20tool%20for%2
0Windows.zip.
9. Center of Language Engineering. (2010, September 01). CRULP Urdu Phonetic Keyboard Layout v1.1
for Windows. (Center of Language Engineering) Retrieved February 3, 2014, from
http://www.cle.org.pk/software/localization/keyboards/CRULPphonetickbv1.1.html.
10.Concept Software. (2013, 12 28). Urdu Inpage. Retrieved 03 11, 2014, from Inpage.com:
http://www.inpage.com.
191
Muhammad et al., 2014
11.Darren A. Apfel, R., David M. Buchthal, D., Steve Rayson, S., Andrew G. Carlson, R., Christopher
Antos, K., & Hai Liu, R. a. (2002, June 11). Patent No. US 6,405,225 B1. United States.
12.Durrani, D. A. (2011, February). Style Guides. Retrieved February 3, 2014, from
http://www.microsoft.com/language/en-us/styleguides.aspx
13.Durrani, N., & Hussain, S. (2010). Urdu Word Segmentation. Human Language Technologies: The
2010 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the ACL, 528-536.
14.Faiza Iqbal, A. L. (n.d.). Conversion of Urdu Nastaliq to Toman Urdu Using OCR. 4.
15.GUL, S. (n.d.). Dilemmas of Localization in Asia- A Case Study on Localization in Pakistan. Center for
Research in Urdu Language Processing (CRULP).
16.H. Sarmad, D. N. (2005). Survey of Language Computing in Asia. Center for Research in Urdu
Language Processing National University of Computing and Emerging Sciences, no. 19, 132-140.
17.Haigh, T. (2006). Remembering the Office of the Future: The Origins of Word Processing and Office
Automation. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing(4), 6-31.
18.Hussain, S., & Afzal, M. (2001). Urdu computing standards: Urdu zabtatakhti (uzt) 1.01. Multi Topic
Conference, 2001. IEEE INMIC 2001. Technology for the 21st Century. Proceedings. IEEE
International, 223-228.
19.Imran, K. (2013, April 21). OOP in the Real World - Creating an Equation Editor. Retrieved February
05, 2014, from http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/522345/OOP-in-the-Real-World-Creating-an-
Equation-Editor
20.InPage. (n.d.). (Concept Software Private Limited) Retrieved February 5, 2014, from http://inpage.com/
21.Iqbal, F. L., Kanwal, N., & and Altaf, T. (2011). Conversion of urdunastaliq to roman urdu using OCR.
In Interaction Sciences (ICIS), 2011 4th International Conference(4th ), 19-22.
22.IrfanQadirBaig, M. S. (n.d.). Multi Language Text Editor for Burushaski and Urdu through Unicode.
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (p. 4). International Journal of Computer,
Information Science and Engineering Vol:1 No:3, 2007 .
23.Lewis, M., P., Gary F., S., & Charles D., F. (2013). Statistical Summaries. (Ethnologue: Languages of
the World, Seventeenth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International.) Retrieved January 31, 2014, from
http://www.ethnologue.com/statistics/size
24.Nasir, S. (2013, September 25). Pakistan crosses 10 million Facebook users. Retrieved February 4,
2014, from http://tribune.com.pk/story/609177/pakistan-crosses-10-million-facebook-users/
25.Rashi, R., &Latif, S. (2012). A Dictionary Based Urdu Word Segmentation Using Maximum Matching
Algorithm for Space Omission Problem. Asian Language Processing (IALP), 2012 International
Conference, IEEE, 101-104.
26.Rehman, B., & Qureshi, T. (2011). Urdu as Interface Design Language - A Novel Approach.
Electronics, Communications and Photonics Conference (SIECPC), 2011 Saudi International. IEEE, 1-6.
27.SummitSoft. (2014, 03 11). UrduEditor. Retrieved 03 11, 2014, from CNET DOWNLOADS:
http://download.cnet.com/Urdu-Editor/3000-2352_4-10062075.html
28.urduweb.org. (2013). Jameel Font Showcase. (UrduLog) Retrieved January 31, 2014, from
http://font.urduweb.org/
29.Uzair Muhammad, K. B. (2005). AGHAZ: An Expert System Based approach for the Translation of
English to Urdu. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 12 2005, (p. 5).
30.Wahab, S. S. (n.d.). Optical Character Recognition System for Urdu. 5.
31.WordPress.com. (2014). WordPress Sites in the World. (WordPress.com) Retrieved February 4, 2014,
from http://en.wordpress.com/stats/
32.Zia, K. (1999). Towards Unicode Standard for Urdu. the Proceedings of 4th Symposium on Multilingual
Information Processing (MLIT-4).
192
Word processors, replaced typewriters in 70s, are much used application program used for day to day tasks of digital writing for any natural language. Unicode based languages particularly Urdu and Arabic script languages are in limelight for last two decades. This paper presents a survey of the existing word processors supporting Unicode based languages focusing Urdu language, which is mainly spoken in the subcontinent. This also presents a complete set of features for an Urdu Word Processor (UWP). The UWP is being implemented using dot net with all the specified basic and advance features and functionality, which can be googled and downloaded freely.
The foremost step in any Natural Language Processing system is Word Segmentation. Word segmentation means dividing a sentence into the words it consists. For this research purpose Urdu is selected because very less work has been done. In Urdu space cannot be used in marking word boundary because it is not consistently used. Urdu word segmentation is different from other Asian languages in that it consist both Space Omission and Space Insertion problem. This paper discusses these problems and suggests a technique that solves both of these problems. It uses simple and already used basic techniques in a different way to develop an efficient Segmentation Algorithm. Morphological analysis of Urdu Text is also taken into account. Dictionary is used for verification and identification of Urdu Words. This work has been tested on words collected from Geo, Jang, BBC news sites and other online documents available on internet. The proposed algorithm has been tested on 11,995 words and 97.2% of these words are segmented correctly.
Machine Translation (MT 3) of English text to its Urdu equivalent is a difficult challenge. Lot of attempts has been made, but a few limited solutions are provided till now. We present a direct approach, using an expert system to translate English text into its equivalent Urdu, using The Unicode Standard, Version 4.0 (ISBN 0-321-18578-1) Range: 0600–06FF. The expert system works with a knowledge base that contains grammatical patterns of English and Urdu, as well as a tense and gender-aware dictionary of Urdu words (with their English equivalents).
-
![Sana Shams]()
Increasing efforts are being made to "Bridge the Digit Divide" by developing technical resources to develop local language enabled applications. However, investing into developing localized ICTs alone would not bridge this gap. This paper presents an overview of problems that restrict mass utilization of localized content in Pakistan. It details the major socio-economic factors attached with the slow pace of local language content flow in an era when technological infrastructure is available to support local language computing. The paper concludes by advancing recommendations for public and private sectors for effective and sustainable framework for localization in Pakistan.
-
![Bacha Rehman]()
- Taimur Qureshi
After several years of research in English and other European languages for interface designing both in desktop and web applications, it has also become a popular domain of research in Urdu language. Unfortunately languages like Urdu have gained a reduced amount of consideration in this regard. In this paper we present a technique for designing an interface initially for desktop application e.g databases. We use ASCII codes for mapping the keystrokes to the Urdu character's images using the well known Phonetic keyboard styles. Initially we create three fonts (e.g CheeChest, MUM1, NooriNastaliq33) for this purpose, and the Urdu characters contained in these fonts are mapped through ASCII codes. On the other hand characters can be mapped to any type of desktop application control (e.g textbox, combo box etc.) for writing Urdu words and further can get access to any database. Since all these activities are performed in runtime, the database stores the characters in original English language in back end. The paper is based on the main and ever-demanded requirement of software furnished with Urdu interface. This paper also presents a literature with new goal that researchers can look these techniques for further development using more advance techniques.
Software development in Urdu has been going on for more than three decades. However, until recently there were no industry standards for coding in Urdu, similar to ASCII standard for English. Keeping in view the necessity and urgency of standardization needs, three years ago a national effort was initiated to get relevant people together and formulate a common standard for everybody to follow. This paper discusses the contents and related specifications of Urdu Zabta Takhti 1.01 in detail. The discussion is divided into subsections on logical groups of characters that form this takhti, Urdu text file format and how sorting may be done in Urdu with UZT.
-
![Tim Bergin]()
Since Electric Pencil first debuted in 1976, more than 400 other word processing packages have emerged, most fading into oblivion. This article recounts the history of microcomputer word processing software - focuses on three of the earliest word processing software packages, Electric Pencil, EasyWriter, and WordStar, which was the mid-1980s leader in the CP/M, PC-DOS, and MS-DOS operating system environments
- Shuwair Sardar
- Abdul Wahab
The subject of Urdu OCR is of real importance. There are about 60 to 80 million speakers of Urdu language ranked as fifth most spoken language with 4.7 percent of the total world population, spoken in South Asia vastly in Pakistan and India. Huge amount of valuable Urdu literature from philosophy to sciences is in vanishing and useless form because it has not been digitized till now. More importantly many of the native speakers of Urdu, especially in Pakistan can only read and write Urdu language and very rare data is available for them on internet and in digitized form. Because of its complexity very rare and partially research work and implementation has been done and therefore no complete OCR for Urdu language exits till now. More importantly mostly research has been done for Urdu OCR is with respect to scripts, fonts and text environment which are other obstacles in the way of making complete OCR. So we have research and moderately implements online and offline OCR system which is irrespective of Urdu scripts and fonts.
- Thomas Haigh
Historians have not yet explored word processing's development, and so to provide a rounded treatment, we examine the story from multiple perspectives. We review the conceptual development of word processing and office automation; the development of word processing's constituent hardware and software technologies; the relationship of word processing to changes in the organization of office work; and the business history of the word processing industry. Word processing entered the American office in 1970 as an idea about reorganizing typists, but its meaning soon shifted to describe computerized text editing. The designers of word processing systems combined existing technologies to exploit the falling costs of interactive computing, creating a new business quite separate from the emerging world of the personal computer
Statistical Summaries. (Ethnologue: Languages of the World
- M Lewis
- P Gary
- S Charles
Lewis, M., P., Gary F., S., & Charles D., F. (2013). Statistical Summaries. (Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Seventeenth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International.) Retrieved January 31, 2014, from http://www.ethnologue.com/statistics/size
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275580642_Urdu_Word_Processor_-_Standards_and_Guidelines
Posted by: cathiepapineaue04187.blogspot.com
0 Komentar