Issue 53497 - Change of Microsoft LCID for Dzongkha
Summary: Change of Microsoft LCID for Dzongkha
Alias: None
Product: Internationalization
Classification: Code
Component: code (show other issues)
Version: current
Hardware: All All
: P3 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: ivo.hinkelmann
QA Contact: issues@l10n
Depends on:
Reported: 2005-08-18 14:15 UTC by lists
Modified: 2013-08-07 15:00 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: PATCH
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---

patch to isolang.cxx (1.10 KB, patch)
2005-08-18 14:17 UTC, lists
no flags Details | Diff
patch to langtab.src (1.54 KB, patch)
2005-08-18 14:18 UTC, lists
no flags Details | Diff
Patch to lang.hxx (1.03 KB, patch)
2005-08-18 14:19 UTC, lists
no flags Details | Diff
patch to dz_BT locale (19.33 KB, patch)
2005-08-18 14:20 UTC, lists
no flags Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description lists 2005-08-18 14:15:14 UTC
   In it's latest list of LCIDs:
Microsoft no longer talks about the inexistant Tibetan Bhutan, but it defines
Dzongkha as 0x851.
  This is an important issue for compatibility. I am attaching patches for :
        1)  tools/inc/lang.hxx
        2)  tools/source/intntl/isolang.cxx
        3)  svx/source/dialog/langtab.src
   to eliminate the variable LANGUAGE_USER_DZONGKHA and to convert

I am also attaching a patch to the locale in which this number is changed from
old assigned number to 851. The locale file has several other changes that come
directly from the Bhutanese Team that agree with the locale that the Bhutanese
government sent to Microsoft. I have also added a few NatNum1, few new formats
and outlines and numbering styles, as solicited by the Bhutanese government.
Comment 1 lists 2005-08-18 14:17:23 UTC
Created attachment 28884 [details]
patch to isolang.cxx
Comment 2 lists 2005-08-18 14:18:25 UTC
Created attachment 28885 [details]
patch to langtab.src
Comment 3 lists 2005-08-18 14:19:10 UTC
Created attachment 28886 [details]
Patch to lang.hxx
Comment 4 lists 2005-08-18 14:20:36 UTC
Created attachment 28887 [details]
patch to dz_BT locale
Comment 5 lists 2005-08-18 14:23:47 UTC
We validated the modified locale file dz_BT.xml as specified in locale.dtd
before doing the patch.

If the locale should be in a separate issue, please tell me. I included here
because it is part of the modification of the Microsoft LCID number.
Comment 6 ooo 2005-08-18 16:26:34 UTC
Sigh.. these MS people make me sick.. that is yet another place where they hide
LCID assignments. After having digged around a bit I doubt that the information
provided there is correct. It seems they just renamed Tibetan_Bhutan to
Dzongkha_Bhutan  in only that document. No other MS page talks about Dzongkha,
but some do about Tibetan. Also, as Tibetan and Dzongkha are two distinct
languages, the numbering schema does not fit to what MS otherwise does. The
value 0x0851 that was always used for Tibetan_Bhutan has a primary language ID
of 0x51 that is also used in 0x0451, which is Tibetan_Tibet (or
Tibetan_People's-Republic-of-China how they call it politically in/correct). So
0x51 is clearly Tibetan. Using the same 0x51 for a distinct language just
doesn't make sense. Maybe someone realized that there are only 4000 people in
Bhutan who speak Tibetan, changed it to Dzongkha but had no clue about LCIDs, I
don't know. I think they simply got it wrong.

Do you happen to know of any document that was created using MS-Word or Excel,
contains Dzongkha and where the text has some distinct LCID value assigned? Is
there even Dzongkha selectable in any version?

I'm hesitating to change this right now as long as not clarified.

For the locale data change, yes, please create a separate issue.

Comment 7 pema.geyleg 2005-08-19 05:38:21 UTC

Maybe someone realized that there are only 4000 people in
Bhutan who speak Tibetan, changed it to Dzongkha but had no clue about LCIDs, I
don't know. I think they simply got it wrong.
Here there is a controversy regarding this. 
Dzongkha language uses Tibetan script and there is no Dzongkha script assigned
in Uniocde. The work of supporting Dzongkha language in Microsoft was carried
out in Bhutan by Dzongkha Development Authority with the help of Orient
Foundation for a duration of 3 years.On the other hand, no work for supporting
Tibetan in Microsoft has been carried out from scratch. They just worked on what
was already created for Dzongkha support.
Microsoft has made the mistake of calling Dzongkha as Tibetan-Bhutan.That's
where they have made a mess and we are in the process of asking them to change
it to Dzongkha. 

Do you happen to know of any document that was created using MS-Word or Excel,
contains Dzongkha and where the text has some distinct LCID value assigned? Is
there even Dzongkha selectable in any version?
Nope. Till windows XP, there is no support. However we can use Dzongkha
computing using Microsft office 2003.

The number of Tibetan speaker in Bhutan is 1000 according to the research
conducted by George Van Driem in "the Languages of the greater himalayan region".
Infact there are more Tibetan speaker in New York compared to our country.

Pema Geyleg
Comment 8 lists 2005-08-19 15:01:28 UTC

MS seems to be confused or unwilling to change. The Government of Bhutan is
quite unhappy about having Tibetan-Bhutan and not Dzongkha. Dzongkha, as well as
modern Tibetan, derive from Old Tibetan, but they are quite different spoken

Tibetan-Bhutan will never be used for Tibetan language in Bhutan. Tibetan
speakers here are a minority of people who run from Tibet after the Chinese
invasion of Tibet, and who are integrating now with the Dzongkha speakers.

Meanwhile, if we maintain a OOo private number, compatibility with MS will not
be possible, and migration to OOo difficult.

In the URL above the identifier refers to Dzongkha, but in MS Vista we have only
been able to find a keyboard for Tibetan (Bhutan), together with the fonts that
were developed here in Bhutan. We have not been able to figure out the language

The Government of Bhutan is contacting MS to try to have them change the

We have submitted a separate issue with the locale, in which the number stays as
628. The change would involve changing the number also in the locale to 851.

Comment 9 ooo 2005-08-22 14:27:51 UTC
What a mess.. ok, I will address this for OOo2.0.

Just for the records some comment about the implications the change may have: in
case anyone tested the LCID value against only its primary ID, being Tibetan,
and acts accordingly on the result, for example by invoking a spell checker or
dictionary, will miss that in fact the language is not Tibetan. This currently
should be no problem in OOo as this scenario is merely hypothetical, but might
occur in other products that act on a file that was written in a MS file format
using LCIDs.
Comment 10 ooo 2005-08-22 15:56:37 UTC
On branch cws_src680_oool10n20


Note that the patches omitted languageoptions.cxx, and would had left
two entries for Dzongkha in langtab.src. For lang.hxx I didn't apply the
patch but did it somewhat different to document the change. I also
didn't apply the dz_BT.xml patch but only changed -628 to -851 in order
to keep the change for this CWS as simple as possible. Other changes of
locale data will be addressed with issue 53550.
Comment 11 ooo 2005-08-22 15:57:16 UTC
Status fixed.
Comment 12 lists 2005-08-24 11:10:28 UTC

We verified the first 4 files, but could not find revision of dz_BT.xml
in webcvs. The present version in cws_scr680_localedata6 ( has the old
number (628).
Comment 13 ooo 2005-08-24 12:23:08 UTC
Hi Javier,

it's clearly in cvs:

> cvs log -N -rcws_src680_oool10n20 dz_BT.xml 
RCS file: /cvs/l10n/i18npool/source/localedata/data/dz_BT.xml,v
total revisions: 6;     selected revisions: 1
date: 2005/08/22 14:47:40;  author: er;  state: Exp;  lines: +1 -1
#i53497# Dzongkha is MS's erroneous Tibetan_Bhutan

And also
lists that revision, currently the second from top.

Comment 14 ivo.hinkelmann 2005-08-29 16:52:38 UTC
Javier, the dz_BT.xml file have been added to branch oool10n20
-> verifed
Comment 15 pavel 2005-08-30 19:39:13 UTC
Comment 16 ivo.hinkelmann 2006-03-28 18:31:32 UTC