Language subtag registration for acor1990 (ammended from ao1990)

CE Whitehead cewcathar at
Thu Aug 25 18:28:13 CEST 2011

Philip Newton philip.newton at
Thu Aug 25 12:59:48 CEST 2011

2011/8/25 João Miguel Neves <joao at>:
> Em 24-08-2011 20:48, Philip Newton escreveu:
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 20:04, Doug Ewell <doug at> wrote:
>>> Maybe 'pt1971' and 'pt1990' are what are needed.
>> So you'd have "pt-pt1971" as the combined tag? That seems a bit...
>> redundant, somehow. Though I admit it *would* make it easier to find
>> the right subtag and to associate the subtag with the right idea.
> Am I wrong to assume that anyone looking for a variant to a language
> starts by limiting herself to the language tag?

I don't know what "anyone" does :) I assume people use a variety of
strategies to find the subtags they think they need to mark up a given

>> Because if easy to find
>> a variant in the registry without looking for the language tag is a
>> requirement, current implementation fails miserably in my short
>> experience with it.

> It's not a requirement.

> As for my personal opinion, "pt1971" would make it easier to find and
> understand, *but* this ease does not make up for the (subjective)
> "ugliness" of the subtag which comes from repeating the language code
> as part of the subtag name. So on the balance, I - personally - would
> disprefer "pt1971".

> Cheers,
> Philip
> -- 
> Philip Newton <philip.newton at>

Of course, [pt] will be the prefix for the subtag.  I personally see no reason to repeat it in the subtag name, but this is up to the speakers not to me.

(A note:  people (as opposed to applications) looking for a particularl subtag can of course use Richard Ishida's free online search tool:

Applications won't care what the name is, as has been noted before on this list.


--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list