Re: locale for Uzbekistan

[Noah Levitt <nlevitt at columbia dot edu>]

In Unicode there is a canonical list of scripts with
mappings to ISO 15924, with the following caveat: 

   Note: ISO 15924 provides an enumeration of four-letter
   script codes. In some cases the match between these
   script names and the ISO 15924 codes is not precise,
   since the goals are somewhat different. ISO 15924 is
   aimed primarily at the bibliographic identification of
   scripts; because of that it occasionally identifies
   varieties of scripts that may be useful for book
   cataloging, but which are not considered distinct as
   scripts in the Unicode Standard. For example, ISO 15924
   has separate script codes for the Fraktur and Gaelic
   varieties of the Latin script.
   [http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24/]

In fact, our goals might be closer to Unicode's than ISO
15924's, not sure. The list is in
http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/PropertyValueAliases.txt
It's short, so I'll paste the relevant portion here:

   sc ; Arab      ; Arabic
   sc ; Armn      ; Armenian
   sc ; Beng      ; Bengali
   sc ; Bopo      ; Bopomofo
   sc ; Brai      ; Braille
   sc ; Buhd      ; Buhid
   sc ; Cans      ; Canadian_Aboriginal
   sc ; Cher      ; Cherokee
   sc ; Cprt      ; Cypriot
   sc ; Cyrl      ; Cyrillic
   sc ; Deva      ; Devanagari
   sc ; Dsrt      ; Deseret
   sc ; Ethi      ; Ethiopic
   sc ; Geor      ; Georgian
   sc ; Goth      ; Gothic
   sc ; Grek      ; Greek
   sc ; Gujr      ; Gujarati
   sc ; Guru      ; Gurmukhi
   sc ; Hang      ; Hangul
   sc ; Hani      ; Han
   sc ; Hano      ; Hanunoo
   sc ; Hebr      ; Hebrew
   sc ; Hira      ; Hiragana
   sc ; Ital      ; Old_Italic
   sc ; Kana      ; Katakana
   sc ; Khmr      ; Khmer
   sc ; Knda      ; Kannada
   sc ; Laoo      ; Lao
   sc ; Latn      ; Latin
   sc ; Limb      ; Limbu
   sc ; Linb      ; Linear_B
   sc ; Mlym      ; Malayalam
   sc ; Mong      ; Mongolian
   sc ; Mymr      ; Myanmar
   sc ; Ogam      ; Ogham
   sc ; Orya      ; Oriya
   sc ; Osma      ; Osmanya
   sc ; Qaai      ; Inherited
   sc ; Runr      ; Runic
   sc ; Shaw      ; Shavian
   sc ; Sinh      ; Sinhala
   sc ; Syrc      ; Syriac
   sc ; Tagb      ; Tagbanwa
   sc ; Tale      ; Tai_Le
   sc ; Taml      ; Tamil
   sc ; Telu      ; Telugu
   sc ; Tglg      ; Tagalog
   sc ; Thaa      ; Thaana
   sc ; Thai      ; Thai
   sc ; Tibt      ; Tibetan
   sc ; Ugar      ; Ugaritic
   sc ; Yiii      ; Yi
   sc ; Zyyy      ; Common

Noah


On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 22:30:07 +0200, Christian Rose wrote:
> tor 2003-09-25 klockan 20.47 skrev Pablo Saratxaga:
> > I think if a standard exists to name scripts it is better to follow it.
> 
> FWIW, that's exactly my opinion too.
> 
> There is a standard for script identifiers and it probably exists for a
> good reason. I'm not convinced that writing out the full English names
> of scripts is a good choice in the long run. Are all English names of
> scripts unambigous? Are they all unique? Is there always a one to one
> mapping? Given that there are several languages that have several
> different spellings, I'm bound to believe this is also the case for some
> script names.