registration requests re Portuguese

João Miguel Neves joao at
Fri Apr 10 20:44:45 CEST 2015


I don't know how this happened, but abl1943 doesn't make sense with any
prefix other than pt-BR. abl1943 refers to the ortography adopted solely
by Brazil between 1943 and 1971. From that point on the official
language becomes pt-BR-colb1945.

My recommendations for prefixes are either:

abl1943: pt-BR
colb1945: pt
ao1990: pt

Otherwise colb1945 and ao1990 should match (the reasoning being that it
doesn't make sense to have the ao1990 tag without the previous colb1945
tag). Based on Michael's list, it should be:

abl1943: pt-BR
colb1945: pt-BR, pt-CV, pt-PT
ao1990: pt-BR, pt-CV, pt-PT

pt-CV-colb1945 would mark the Portuguese ortography used officially from
the country formation (1975) to the adoption of 1990's "Acordo Ortográfico".

Best regards,

On 10/04/2015 19:16, cowan at wrote:
> 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.

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list