RE: New Locale Proposal

From: Carl W. Brown (
Date: Thu Sep 28 2000 - 02:12:00 EDT


Originally I was concerned about script playing an important role in locale
variants. However, if we assume that these are Unicode locales then a new
rule comes into play.

If the scripts don't overlap don't worry. Support both in the same locale.


-----Original Message-----
From: Erland Sommarskog []
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 3:36 PM
To: Unicode List
Subject: Re: New Locale Proposal

Antoine Leca <> writes:
> In the last publication of new codes, there was "bs" for "Bosnian".
> My understanding of the situation of the former Yugoslavia is that
> the language which is intended to be tagged is a form of Serbo-Croatian
> that is spoken in the country named Bosnia-Herzegovina (not sure
> about Herzegovina), and outside this country by the natives or relatives
> of natives of this very country.
> Now this language is not a sudden invention: it was known before. And
> as I understand things, this language was tagged "hr-XX-Bosnian", or
> something like that (XX being the relevant country of the speaker).
> So now the (probably fictious) document is supposed to be re-tagged
> as "bs-XX". Or have I missed something?

I only have a backlog of 200 messages, so pardon me if I repeat

While the arise the new languages Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian in
the ashes of Serbo-Croatian carries the aura of ridicule, it was
nevertheless the case that evn before the split-up of Yugoslavia
there existed four standards for Serbo-Croatian, one per republic.
At least, so I have been told.

And probably four are not enough, because at least Serbian and Bosnian
can be written in either Latin or Cyrillic script.

Erland Sommarskog, Stockholm,

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:14 EDT