registration requests re Portuguese

[cowan at ccil.org]

Michael Everson scripsit:

> abl1943:  pt
> ao1990:   pt-BR, pt-CV, pt-PT

These strike me as inconsistent.  Abl1943 was widened from pt-PT to
all forms of pt, even though it was never adopted in BR, on the grounds
that some Brazilians may have used it.  Why not, then, widen ao1990
to all forms of pt likewise?  People in other lusophone countries,
or for that matter non-lusophone countries, may well be using it.

Of course one can *live with* any prefix value for variant subtags,
since there is nothing mandatory about them: de-abl1943 and en-ao1990
are well formed and valid, though nonsensical.  But it seems to me
that if abl1943 should be widened to pt (and I agree that it should),
then so should ao1990, regardless of which countries it has or has
not been legally blessed in.

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org
Business before pleasure, if not too bloomering long before.
        --Nicholas van Rijn