RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional

From: Carl W. Brown (
Date: Tue Oct 03 2000 - 14:05:21 EDT


It seems that the proper solution is to use ISO 15924 which is part of the
new RCF-1766 sublanguage specifications. However to my amazment that do not
have separate script designations for traditional and simplified scripts.

I also noticed that ISO 15897 cultural locale registry has a zh_CN but no
zh_TW locale.

Could this be a one China vs two China issue?

It might be worthwhile to see if we could add a Traditional script variant
the Hani or make two subsets of Hani: Hant and Hans


-----Original Message-----
From: Steven R. Loomis []
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 12:44 PM
To: Unicode List
Subject: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional

 In RFC1766 usage, "zh-tw" is often used to mean traditional chinese,
and "zh-cn" is used for simplified This occurs in places such as HTTP
headers and xml:lang tags.

 In POSIX locale id usage, zh_CN and zh_TW are also simplified and
traditional, respectively.

 However, what should be done for simplified versus traditional in the
regions hong kong and singapore? I am wondering both for the posix
locale IDs and as well ICU's locale IDs.

 zh_HK is traditional Chinese.
zh_HK_CN could mean simplified with CN as the variant. (zh_HK@CN in
POSIX format)
Or, it could be zh_CN_HK (Chinese-China (Hong Kong)) .. is this not
correct to say now?

However, that doesn't help Singapore. zh_SG_CN or zh_SG_TW don't make
sense, at best. (zh_SG@CN, zh_SG@TW).

Perhaps it should be zh_SG_SC and zh_SG_TC for simplified and
traditional. In this light, hong kong could also have zh_HK_SC for



Steven R. Loomis - ICU Code Sculptor - -  +1 408.777.5845
IBM CET, Cupertino, Silicon Valley, California, USA - ------- personal: -

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