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.
From: Erland Sommarskog [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 3:36 PM
To: Unicode List
Subject: Re: New Locale Proposal
Antoine Leca <Antoine.Leca@renault.fr> 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, firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:14 EDT