Language subtag registration for acor1990 (ammended from ao1990)
António H F P A Emiliano (FCSH/UNL)
ah.emiliano at fcsh.unl.pt
Thu Aug 25 18:14:31 CEST 2011
On 2011/08/25, at 15:59, Philip Newton wrote:
> 2011/8/25 "António H F P A Emiliano (FCSH/UNL)"
> <ah.emiliano at fcsh.unl.pt>:
>> Earlier periods should be considered: pre1214, 1214, 1255, 1536, 15th
>> century, ...
> The language subtag registry does not go about attempting to create a
> complete set of subtags, especially for variant subtags.
> Those get registered by people who feel a need for them - the lack of
> a particular subtag does not mean that such a subtag is not useful; it
> just means that nobody has registered it yet.
OK. I see.
> Registering subtags "for completeness", without a concrete need, is
> not necessary.
Not necessary but still useful for systemic reasons.
Like when you include a new character in the Universal Character Set
to pair it with another or to complete a set.
>> Regional variants should also be encoded in subtags: at least one
>> for each
>> the signatories of the Treaty of 1990.
> I imagine this could be achieved by using the country subtags:
> pt-BR-1990 vs pt-PT-1990, for example.
Hmm. It certainly is worth considering.
>> No tags for NL in that registry.
>> Their *absence* should be *food for thought* in this instance.
> I don't agree.
OK. I see your point (qv supra) & will not press it.
>> Does one really need language subtags which refer to spelling
> That depends *entirely* on the "one". Perhaps this is the best way to
> make the point.
> When someone comes along and says, "I have material which I wish to
> tag with language subtags. I have a business need to distinguish
> between [variety 1] and [variety 2], and would like to propose two
> subtags to cover them", that's when variant subtags get created.
> It's hard to say beforehand what subtags will be needed because
> people's business needs vary.
OK. Agreed. But one can foresee that the inclusion of a particular
tag *may* lead to inclusion of others.
Again I value systemic factors and considerations.
>> We got along pretty well in PT without <1911> and <1945> subtags.
>> I mean 1911 was a major reform that changed drammatically the
>> outlook of the
>> written Portuguese language in Portugal (typographico > tipográfico,
>> grammatica > gramática, archetypo > arquétipo, millennio >
>> milénio). No need
>> for it was felt in past 100 yrs...
>> Shouldn’t one wait till the 1990-reform is fully enforced in
>> Portugal and
>> the remaining countries to add the subtag?
> I believe this is a question to be addressed to João Miguel Neves, who
> proposed the subtag, not to the ietf-languages list.
OK. The author of the proposal bears the burden of supplying data &
arguments but I don’t think that you can say that a matter such as
this should be addressed to any particular individual or any
particular interest, regardless of exiosting proposals. I mean I do
think this is something the list could address as a matter of
principle (and policy maybe). After all we're talking about tagging a
major world language here.
Many thanks. Best regards. - A.
Universidade Nova de Lisboa (Portugal)
Departamento de Linguística
ah.emiliano at fcsh.unl.pt
More information about the Ietf-languages