Portuguese subtags

[Doug Ewell]

Luc Pardon <lucp at skopos dot be> wrote:

> BCP47-style private-use subtags are "intended for private interchange"
> only, they are "not recommended for general interchange", and they are
> "useless for information exchange without prior arrangement", so
> tagging with "pt-x-mumble" in this case would be at least as much an
> abuse of the tagging mechanism as using a tag that is valid on all
> counts but was rejected for invalid/irrelevant reasons only. And
> nobody will go to jail for using either.

> This list cannot demand that people follow the BCP 47 rules if it
> keeps bending the rules itself (e.g. by inventing arbitrary
> requirements for approval), and encourages people to do the same (e.g.
> by suggesting private tags for public communication).

For my part, I only suggested that if João did find himself in a
position where he had to "drop the matter and use non-official tags,"
that he follow the documented rules of BCP 47 in creating such tags.

For what it's worth, I think the "health warnings" in BCP 47 against
using private-use tags are worded somewhat excessively (and similarly in
other standards that provide private-use code elements), but that isn't
the point.  A syntactically valid private-use tag is at least no worse
than a syntactically invalid one.

I didn't make any claim, and haven't throughout this thread, that
João's requests are inadequately documented or that the orthographic
variants are somehow unworthy of being encoded.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14
www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell ­