Language subtag registration for acor1990 (amended from ao1990)

António H F P A Emiliano (FCSH/UNL) ah.emiliano at
Fri Aug 26 20:17:19 CEST 2011

On 2011/08/26, at 17:13, ietf-languages-request at wrote:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 06:56:35 -0700
> From: "Doug Ewell" <doug at>
> To: ietf-languages at
> Subject: Language subtag registration for acor1990 (amended from
> 	ao1990)
> Message-ID:
> <20110826065635.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.b0a4d53906.wbe at email0 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> "Martin J. D?rst" <duerst at it dot aoyama dot ac dot jp> wrote:
>>> 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".
>> Agreed, the 'pt' in the variant subtag is very ugly indeed!
> ...
> We've used '1901' and '1996' for German and '1994' for the Resian
> dialect of Slovenian, and the sky hasn't fallen.  Maybe that is the  
> most
> sensible model to follow.


> If we feel we must add letters to clarify
> what the year means, let's at least decide whether the letters should
> precede the year (like 'alalc97'  and 'baku1926' and 'luna1918' and
> 'petr1708') or follow it (like '1606nict' and '1694acad' and
> '1959acad'), and let's stick to that one convention instead of  
> switching
> back and forth.

No letters please. Keep it short keep it simple.
However if letters are felt to be needed I wld say they that shld  
come after the date: 1990aolp, 1945colb, 1911bop.

> ------------------------------
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 15:19:07 +0100
> From: Michael Everson <everson at>
> To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion <ietf-languages at>
> Subject: Re: Language subtag registration for acor1990 (ammended from
> 	ao1990)
> Message-ID: <84C18D82-158E-497B-BE51-EAE959A52E28 at>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> The reason I brought António into this was that I know that the  
> "Accord" is really very controversial in Portugual, and some users  
> will simply not accept it. We have seen the same thing with German.  
> (Indeed my update of the 1870 Alice was published in pre- 
> Schlechtschreibung orthography).
> If it makes good sense to be able to tag the "new" orthography, it  
> makes the same good sense to be able to tag the previous non- 
> Brazilianized orthography.


> The way that we have done this before is to have a subtag defined  
> by a reference work, to a particular specification of the  
> orthography. Not to a governmental decree, for instance, but to a  
> (mostly at least) complete instantiation of the orthography in  
> question.  I don't know that we need to be able to tag every  
> revision of the orthography, but the pre- and post-"Accord"  
> division is a bit of a watershed.

The pre1911 and 1911 division is actually the major watershed in PT,  
The pre1931 and 1931 division is the Brazilian counterpart. 1931 is  
*similar* to 1911.

> Can António and João point to such authoritative works for each  
> orthography?


What's your take on my “systemic approach” and my request/wish for a  
“complete” set of subtags?
It does stem from some of the stuff I've watched you do for Unicode.

Regards. - A.

António Emiliano
Universidade Nova de Lisboa (Portugal)
Departamento de Linguística
ah.emiliano at

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list