Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 104, Issue 14

Thu Sep 15 23:27:22 CEST 2011

Hi.

On Sep 15, 2011, at 17:48, ietf-languages-request at alvestrand.no wrote:

> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 11:04:07 +0100
> From: Jo?o Miguel Neves <joao at silvaneves.org>
> To: ietf-languages at iana.org
> Subject: Language subtag registration for 1990aolp
>
> So here's the (hopefully final) proposal:
>
> LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM
>  1. Name of requester: Jo?o Miguel Neves
>  2. E-mail address of requester: joao at silvaneves.org
>  3. Record Requested:
>
>     Type: variant
>     Subtag: 1990aolp
>     Description: Portuguese orthography based on 1990 agreement.
>     Prefix: pt
>     Comments: Portuguese orthography as defined by an international
>       agreement signed in 1990 and implemented from 2009
>
>  4. Intended meaning of the subtag:
>
> This variant subtag is intended to apply to text that uses the modern
> Portuguese orthography introduced in an international agreement signed
> in 1990 and implemented from 2009.
>
>  5. Reference to published description
>     of the language (book or article):
>
> The full text of the Agreement (Acordo Ortogr?fico da L?ngua
> Portuguesa (1990)) as part of the Portuguese Parliament Resolution
> n. 26/91: http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/1991/08/193A00/43704388.pdf
>
> The official vocabulary is at http://www.portaldalinguaportuguesa.org/
> as defined by the Minister's Council Resolution n. 8/2011:
> http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2011/01/01700/0048800489.pdf

The full official name of the reform should be stated at least in the  
comments if not in the description.
The language of this should be thoroughly proofread by a native  
speaker of EN.
"1990 agreement" is very vague language.

I strongly object to the reference to an "official vocabulary": there  
is no such thing. There is an online database that contains errors  
and typos. Furthermore it is not a stable resource and no complete  
wordlist can be extracted from it. There are at least two  
commercially available dictionaries in print that could be used as  
references, provided that the proposal mentions i) that these  
dictionaries do not coincide 100%, and ii) that these dictionaries do  
not fulfil the stipulation of the 1990 Treaty.

The Acordo Ortográfico 1990 is an International Treaty. It should not  
be called an agreement.

> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 11:32:33 +0100
> From: Jo?o Miguel Neves <joao at silvaneves.org>
> To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion <ietf-languages at iana.org>
> Subject: Language subtag registration for 1945colb
>
> LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM
>  1. Name of requester: Ant?nio H. Emiliano, Francisco Miguel Valada,
> Jo?o Miguel Neves
>  2. E-mail address of requester: ah.emiliano at fcsh.unl.pt,
> fmvalada at hotmail.com, joao at silvaneves.org
>  3. Record Requested:
>
>     Type: variant
>     Subtag: 1945colb
>     Description: Portuguese orthography based on 1945 agreement.
>     Prefix: pt
>     Comments: Portuguese orthography as defined by an international
>       agreement signed in 1945
>
>  4. Intended meaning of the subtag:
>
> This variant subtag is intended to apply to text that uses the
> Portuguese orthography introduced in an international agreement signed
> in 1945 and implemented from 1945 in Portugal and 1971 in Brazil.
>
>  5. Reference to published description
>     of the language (book or article):
>
> Grande Dicion?rio L?ngua Portuguesa, Porto Editora, 2004

The full and official name of the reform should be stated.
The wording should be proofread by a native speaker of EN.

> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:50:09 +0200
> From: Luc Pardon <lucp at skopos.be>
> To: ietf-languages at iana.org
> Subject: Re: Portuguese subtags
>
> On 09/14/2011 07:16 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
>
> Whether
> the dictionary for it is printed in the proper typeface or on the  
> proper
> paper size to be recognized by Michael as a valid source is totally
> irrelevant.

I fail to see the relevance of this remark.

> In fact, whether or not there is a dictionary at all is
> irrelevant. The requester must simply provide a "Reference to  
> published
> description of the language (book or article)". Note that it says
> "article", which seems to imply that the description need not be
> exhaustive to be acceptable. In fact, BCP 47 3.5 seems pretty clear  
> to me:
>
>>  In most cases, reference to an authoritative grammar
>>    or dictionary of that language will be useful; in cases where  
>> no such
>>    work exists, other well-known works describing that language or in
>>    that language MAY be appropriate.

There are no authoritative dictionaries for the 1990 reform. No well- 
known publications.

>   It is not acceptable that, if people request tagging for one
> particular spelling of a language, it is imposed on them that they
> demonstrate linguistic and political and whatever consensus on all
> possible spellings of that particular language since Lucy came out of
> Africa.

I don't see how this remark applies to the present discussion.
The request by Michael for a specification of the reform seems  
sensible, since there is a consensus that the text of the Treaty is  
not enough.

>   Actually, sidetracking requests like this is a most efficient
> mechanism to block any and all new registrations.

Ok. I'm not interested in this type of chit-chat and I did not sign  
up for this type of discussion. I stopped reading this rubbish right  
here. Bye.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20110915/52bf8e0d/attachment-0001.html>