No, you misunderstand.
What do you mean by (paraphrased): `The Japanese standard has been tabled with
Japanese romanization'?
I have been trying to explain to you that romanization expresses the spoken
language, not the written language, and that there is no `table' that can
express the translation from spoken to written language.
There are rules in reading and writing Japanese that do not conform neatly to
tables the way they do in European languages. At times, even adult Japanese
have to inquire on how something in the written language is read, particularly
in names.
Let me state it flat out:
. you can not accurately state the kanji if you use a romanization-based
system
and
. you can not accurately state the romanization if you use a kanji-based
system.
Here is an example. These are the kanji I use for my name:
-+-+- | -++- --|-- /__
+-|-|-+ -+-++++ +-|-+ / /
+-+-+-+ |\|||| |===| / /
--|-- /| |/\| -+===+- /\
/|\ | |__| / \ / \
The first character is read as RITSU/kuri, the second character is read as SEI
but is also a simplification for another character which is read as
SEI/su(mu), the third character is read as SHIN/makoto/ma-, the fourth as
KYU^/KU/hisa(shii)/hisa(shiku). The intended reading is Kurisu Ma(a)ku, but
most native Japanese would read it as Kurisu Ma(sa)hisa (which fortunately is
a masculine name). This is modern-style, mixing ON (Chinese origin) and kun
(Japanese origin) readings and having an implied syllable.
It cannot be romanized without losing the meaning of the kanji. It cannot be
expressed in kanji without losing the romanization (in particular, the implied
syllable and the intended reading of the fourth character).
Now, this is a henna gaijin application, but real-life Japanese names have
these (and worse problems).