registration requests re Portuguese

[Doug Ewell]

Yury wrote:

> Isn't any <orthography> just a set of rules, put into the identifiable
> set of paper books, electronic documents, etc.?
> People never actually use 100% pure <orthography Mk.X>. The deviations
> may form their own identifiable ruleset, and so on.

Language tagging can't track differences in usage between individuals. 
That's too fine-grained and would result in tags that are so narrow as 
to be useless for searching. One might as well search by author.

>> So it is useful to be able to write "pt-PT-ao1990" or "pt-BR-ao1990"
>> to distinguish between different editions (translations) of a single
>> work.  This is not disputed.  The issue at hand is to determine
>
> Isn't it missing the mark completely? The edition/translations has
> responsibles, publishing attributes, ratification date, whatever.
> There may be several re-issues of the same standard. How do you
> account for those in the scheme you cite?

Only the three spelling reforms under discussion have been identified. 
It would be a surprise if a different publisher or translation of any of 
the works introduced substantive changes.

--
Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO 🇺🇸