Registration request for new subtags for Portuguese orthographies

[Peter Constable]

Michael,

These objections appear to be focused on whether there is consistent practice between Brazil and Portugal. That is completely irrelevant. Within Portugal, AO1990 is used, and AO1945 is also used. Localizers and content creators have real needs to qualify Portuguese content using these variants. This is every bit as real a need as Adlam, Cherokee or Osage authors needing characters encoded to unblock their work.

As for sub-subtags, it will be the prerogative of anybody who wants to to request variant subtags that take an existing variant subtag as recommended prefix at any time. That is not what anybody is requesting at this time.

I will say again, there appears to be a consensus on this list in favor of the requests: Several have voiced explicit support. One person has raised some concerns and these have been responded to; these do but undermine the consensus. It's time for you to separate you role as facilitator on this list from your role of individual contributor.


Peter


Sent from my IBM 3277/APL
________________________________
From: Michael Everson<mailto:everson at evertype.com>
Sent: ‎3/‎21/‎2015 8:01 AM
To: ietf-languages at alvestrand.no<mailto:ietf-languages at alvestrand.no>
Cc: António H F P A Emiliano [FCSH/UNL]<mailto:antonio.emiliano at fcsh.unl.pt>
Subject: Re: Registration request for new subtags for Portuguese orthographies

Another. As far as I can tell there is no standard orthography to be tagged. Not without sub-subtags.

==========
More thoughts:

- before 1990:
António, homónimo, higiénico, génese were ao45
Antônio, homônimo, higiênico, gênese were abl43
- after 1990:
all 8 forms are ao1990 and the first 4 are still ao45

- there is no such thing as pt-ao1990 (as one of your correspondents suggests): the Brasília CPLP summit declared that each of the signatory countries could/should maintain their "orthographic tradition" in their own adoption of ao1990 (so the treaty can be applied differently in each country -- why then make a unification treaty in the first place if you declare that it is partially void?); hence Antônio, homônimo, higiênico, gênese are *pt-BR-ao1990* and António, homónimo, higiénico, génese are *pt-PT-ao1990*; this is the craziness we have to deal with -— an orthographic agreement where it is agreed that PT and BR disagree in their implementation of the reform; the Brasília declaration can be viewed at the CPLP's website

- if one tags a text as ao1990 and a form like ACTO (act) occurs how should you annotate it? <error type="ao1945">acto</error>? but if a form like ATO for ACTO occurs in a text using the 45 orthography it should simply be tagged as <error type:"missing_letter">ato</error>

- there is not a single unified specification of ao1990, something that the 1990 treaty itself stipulates as condition sine qua non; all 3 Portuguese wordlists were published by entities funded by the Portuguese government!; ergo the 3 list are official; I submit that if you adopt a tag like ao1990 you must also adopt a tag like pt-PT-ao1990 (per the Brasilia summit) and 3 additional tags referring to each of the 3 lists: pt-PT-ao1990-iltec, pt-PT-ao1990-acl, pt-PT-ao1990-incm; do you really want to go this way and subscribe to the craziness? this is real; this should not be happening in a modern civilized country in the EU.

On Mar 21, 2015, at 12:11 AM, Michael Everson wrote:

> I don’t dismiss the concerns António has raised. Lawsuits?
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/

--
Doutor António H F P A Emiliano
Professor Associado (com Agregação)
Departamento de Linguística
FCSH/UNL
antonio.emiliano at fcsh.unl.pt

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20150321/db25b286/attachment-0001.html>