Registration request for new subtags for Portuguese orthographies

Shawn Steele Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com
Thu Mar 26 07:26:42 CET 2015 

I believe that prefixing the two tags with pt-PT instead of just pt would address our immediate concern.

Thanks,
Shawn

-----Original Message-----
From: Ietf-languages [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Phillips, Addison
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 8:54 PM
To: "Martin J. Dürst"; João Miguel Neves; ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
Subject: RE: Registration request for new subtags for Portuguese orthographies

> So if Shawn (and who else?) needs pt-PT-ao1990, wouldn't it be better 
> to register this with
>     Prefix: pt-PT
> Would we need other prefixes at this point? Could we add other 
> prefixes if we need them later?

Additional prefixes can be added or existing prefixes "broadened". For example, we can change the prefix from "pt-PT" to "pt". Or the prefix "pt-TL" (for example: I chose something other than Brazil for variety's sake) could be added. This is covered by Section 3.1.8:

--
   Otherwise, changes (additions,
   deletions, or modifications) to the set of 'Prefix' fields MAY be
   registered, as long as they strictly widen the range of language tags
   that are recommended.  For example, a 'Prefix' with the value "be-
   Latn" (Belarusian, Latin script) could be replaced by the value "be"
   (Belarusian) but not by the value "ru-Latn" (Russian, Latin script)
   or the value "be-Latn-BY" (Belarusian, Latin script, Belarus), since
   these latter either change or narrow the range of suggested tags.
--

Addison

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ietf-languages [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On 
> Behalf Of "Martin J. Dürst"
> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 6:56 PM
> To: João Miguel Neves; ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Registration request for new subtags for Portuguese 
> orthographies
> 
> I'm not totally up to date about the rules for declaring/updating 
> prefix fields, but it looks to me like we might get closer to a 
> solution by looking at the prefixes.
> 
> On 2015/03/26 01:51, João Miguel Neves wrote:
> > Just for curiosity, the original proposal (you can also track the 
> > discussion from there):
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.languages/9194
> 
> The form there (and the one at
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.languages/10392 that's officially 
> discussed here this time) has
>     Prefix: pt
> It seems to me that (part of?) what Michael is arguing is that 
> pt-ao1990 is very wide and fuzzy, and therefore not very useful.
> 
> > On 25/03/2015 16:33, Peter Constable wrote:
> >> Michael, consider Shawn's assertion: I need pt-PT-ao1990; I don't 
> >> need
> some hypothetical refinements of that.
> 
> So if Shawn (and who else?) needs pt-PT-ao1990, wouldn't it be better 
> to register this with
>     Prefix: pt-PT
> Would we need other prefixes at this point? Could we add other 
> prefixes if we need them later?
> 
> Regards,   Martin.
> 
> 
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ietf-languages [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] 
> >> On Behalf Of Shawn Steele
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 9:07 AM
> >> To: Michael Everson; ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> >> Subject: RE: Registration request for new subtags for Portuguese 
> >> orthographies
> >>
> >>
> >>> I was asking you lot to make suggestions. I have objected to the
> underspecification. I would like you to offer suggestions as to 
> alternatives which would make sense to you. I did not want to get into 
> trouble specifying things that might conflict or be impossible in the 
> kinds of implementations you are working with.
> >> For my scenario it is not underspecified.  For Andrew's proposed 
> >> solution
> is totally fine for my needs.  I can't invent multiple variant 
> solutions for scenarios I don't have.
> >>
> >>> So, again, if a user in Portugal wants his variants of ao1990 and 
> >>> a user in
> Brazil wants his variants of ao1990, how would you propose to respond 
> to those user requirements?
> >> I don't, those aren't my user requirements.  They're your 
> >> hypothetical
> user's requirements, but I don't have any requests or suggestions or 
> hints of that being a real problem.  Since it's your scenario, I 
> thought you might be able to make suggestions.
> >>
> >> I need pt-PT-ao1990.  Should your user need pt-BZ-ao1990, that'd be
> possible.  I presume, however that you mean "three users in Brazil (or
> Portugal) want different variants of ao1990" since if everyone wanted 
> the same thing we wouldn't be having this conversation.  Again, I 
> don't have that scenario.  I grasp that there are apparently 
> differences I don't quite follow,
> however:
> >>
> >> A) There are subtle variants of English & German that nobody ever
> bothers tagging in practice.  (Indeed the conversation mentioned those 
> earlier).  I'm not qualified to say how "important" further 
> discrimination of Portuguese variants is.
> >>
> >> B) Should someone need more specificity, then nothing about ao1990
> would preclude that.  When such a scenario is identified and proposed, 
> there could be an ao1990-silva (totally hypothetical variation 
> codified by some guy named silva) or ao1990-featureX or 
> ao1990-featureA-featureX (though I can't imagine that level of detail being practical).
> >>
> >> I can imagine tons of things, but it's not my problem, I don't have 
> >> the
> scenarios, I don't have the understanding of the detail you're 
> concerned about, and those details are far too specific for my needs.
> >>
> >> My scenario is that when a developer updates their app to present a 
> >> user
> with a post-reform localization and the user says "gee, the government 
> taught that to my kids in school, but I don't want to play that way", 
> that the developer has the ability to revert the change and provide 
> tags to discriminate for their pro-reform and anti-reform user base.  
> AFAIK nobody has requested "gee, I love the reform, except for X".
> >>
> >> I have only two variants to worry about.  For that I need two 
> >> variant tags
> (or one I suppose would do).
> >>
> >> -Shawn
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list