Portuguese subtags (was: RE: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 104, Issue 15)

Philip Newton philip.newton at gmail.com
Fri Sep 16 07:05:40 CEST 2011

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 00:02, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org> wrote:
> I don't know Portuguese, so I can't comment on the worthiness of these
> proposals from a linguistic perspective.  But this is starting to feel
> like an effort to use legal technicalities to reject the proposals on
> the basis of not liking the reforms.  I hope I am reading the situation
> wrong.

My interpretation of the opposition, for what it's worth, was that the
1990 orthography is not a single, defined entity in the sense that
it's possible to independently create, say, a spelling checker which
will unambiguously label a given word or text as "conforms to the
orthography" or "does not conform to the orthography". In that sense,
the mention of Scouse is probably useful: it may not be necessary for
a variant to be described with 100% exactness for it to be useful.

Philip Newton <philip.newton at gmail.com>

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list