Language subtag registration for acor1990 (amended from ao1990) (Mistagged ? Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 103, Issue 23)
cewcathar at hotmail.com
Sat Aug 27 19:33:15 CEST 2011
António H F P A Emiliano (FCSH/UNL) ah.emiliano at fcsh.unl.pt
Sat Aug 27 16:11:25 CEST 2011
On Aug 27, 2011, at 11:00, ietf-languages-request at alvestrand.no wrote:
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 19:50:35 +0100
> From: Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com>
> To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion <ietf-languages at iana.org>
> Subject: Re: Language subtag registration for acor1990 (amended from
> Message-ID: <08BCFABC-C93A-4E9E-8FF4-767A10699A1A at evertype.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
> On 26 Aug 2011, at 19:17, Ant?nio H F P A Emiliano (FCSH/UNL) wrote:
>>> 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, Michael.
>> The pre1931 and 1931 division is the Brazilian counterpart. 1931
>> is *similar* to 1911.
>>> Can Ant?nio and Jo?o point to such authoritative works for each
>> 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.
> To be honest, what I really care about in the short term is being
> able to distinguish the present, stable European Portuguese
> orthography from the new Brazilianized "accord" which may be
> adopted in Portugual. If that means 1911 and 1990, that's fine;
> compare German.
> Michael I understand the short term need for at least two Portuguese
> subtags (1945, 1990).
I think that's what Mr.(Dr.?) Neves asked for;
but I will let him clarify himself the periods/orthographies he wishes to distinguish.
(If I can add a note here, I want to note that it's my understanding that anyone and not just Jose can apply for an additional subtag for Portuguese as needed;
the prefix could be just pt;
or it could be something like pt-PT ; but I do not know how much support there would be for the latter.)
> I also understand that subtags containing just a date might be
> frowned upon because they are ambiguous/vague.
Just a quick question regarding the dates; is the info (in English) at the following URL accurate for all dates/countries:
Thanks for clarifying this.
> To quote from a previous post of mine:
>> ... if letters are felt to be needed I wld say they that shld come
>> after the date: 1990aolp, 1945colb, 1911bop.
Hi, after reading this and Addison's post,
I have decided to not push one order or another,
but do hope we can get decent names for these short subtags (though we can no longer get these for language subtags)
> The letters refer to the *official* name of the governmental
> specifications of the reforms in Portugal:
> 1911 - Bases da Ortografia Portuguesa (w/ several subsequent
> ammendments and revisions)
> 1945 - Convenção Ortográfica Luso-Brasileira (w/ an ammendment in 73)
> 1990 - Acordo Ortográfico da Língua Portuguesa (still not fully
Thanks Antonio very much for this.
I do feel some letters may be needed because of different dates of implementation in Brazil and Portugal.
That's a personal opinion.
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com
> Regards. - A.
> António Emiliano
> Universidade Nova de Lisboa (Portugal)
> Departamento de Linguística
> ah.emiliano at fcsh.unl.pt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages