Language subtag registration for acor1990 (ammended from ao1990)
João Miguel Neves
joao at silvaneves.org
Tue Aug 30 15:38:11 CEST 2011
Em 26-08-2011 17:48, António H F P A Emiliano (FCSH/UNL) escreveu:
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:47:00 +0100
>> From: Jo?o Miguel Neves <joao at silvaneves.org>
>> To: ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
>> Subject: Re: Language subtag registration for acor1990 (ammended from
>> Message-ID: <4E566E74.7000904 at silvaneves.org>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>> Em 25-08-2011 15:48, Ant?nio H F P A Emiliano (FCSH/UNL) escreveu:
>>> I think this is the most simple (and less problematic) procedure .
>>> pre1911 - Traditional Portuguese orthography (late 18th century to
>>> early 20th century)
>>> 1911 - Portuguese orthography of 1911
>>> 1945 - Portuguese orthography of 1945 (Conven??o Ortogr?fica
>>> Luso-Brasileira, 1945)
>>> 1990 - Portuguese orthography of 1990 (Acordo Ortogr?fico da L?ngua
>>> Portuguesa, 1990) -->
>>> --> alternatives: 1991 (ratification), 2008 (transitional
>>> enforcement), 2014 (full enforcement?)
>> Why did you choose to leave the 1931 agreement implemented in 1940 in
>> Portugal ainda in 1943 in Brazil out?
> Sorry I don’t understand this (the paragraph seems to be truncated).
> Please clarify.
> This is an important issue.
There's an international agreement between Portugal and Brazil in 1931
that was implemented officially in 1940 in Portugal and in 1943 in
Brasil. According to claims I've seen most of it's contents is from the
Portuguese 1911 reform.
"1931 <https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/pt/wiki/1931> - Primeiro
Acordo Ortográfico por iniciativa da Academia Brasileira de Letras
e aprovado pela Academia das Ciências de Lisboa
em Portugal publicado no /Diário do Govêrno/, n.º 120, I Série, 25 de
Maio de 1931."
If we go for international treaties, then it would be: 1931, 1945, 1990.
I agree we can extend to 1911 given the huge reform it was. This means
I'll be searching reference material for 1945 and 1990. Feel free to
help in these or all of them.
> I do think that a systemic approach to tagging will benefit the whole
> community and not just the authors of any given proposal with
> particular needs.
> I mean, if you need a <1990> tag why not throw in some other tags that
> make sense and form a set? See my arguments elsewhere in the discussion.
I would have no problem doing that, if it didn't take time. I'm not a
specialist on the language, I'm an IT guy that manages a few translation
projects. If you provide the reference materials required, I'll have no
problem submitting the other proposals.
Thaks in advance,
João Miguel Neves
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages