registration requests re Portuguese

Peter Constable petercon at
Fri Apr 10 22:08:45 CEST 2015

+1 (which, translated, means, "I support that position")


-----Original Message-----
From: Ietf-languages [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at] On Behalf Of Luc Pardon
Sent: April 10, 2015 12:53 PM
Cc: ietf-languages at
Subject: Re: registration requests re Portuguese

On 10-04-15 17:51, Michael Everson wrote:

> I am satisfied with
> abl1943:  pt
> ao1990:   pt-BR, pt-CV, pt-PT
> But despite saying they could live with the latter, some people offered more grumblings. For my part I was not convinced by them. 

  Why are you not convinced?

  You raised some concerns and asked that they be addressed. That is fair. So people "offered grumblings" and all you have to say is "I am not convinced, period". Please elaborate.

  To re-iterate my "grumblings" :

  1. There is no evidence whatsoever that regional variants of ao1990 do exist. There are only assumptions and guesses. This is not enough to justify the narrowing of the original request down from "Prefix: pt".

  2. The AO1990 was designed by Portuguese-speaking linguists for use all over the world.

  Following that logic, it must be "Prefix: pt".

  It wouldn't be a spelling reform if there weren't any opponents, but it is not the business of this list to take sides. It is also not the business of this list to try and track the progress of the reform.

  3. Narrowing to only the countries that ratified AO1990 is arbitrary and makes no sense.

  It is arbitrary because this particular convention happens to be implemented as an international agreement between multiple governments.
Most spelling conventions are not.

  It makes no sense because a spelling convention can be used without being ratified, there is simply no connection between the two.

  4. Narrowing in the way we do it here is most illogical as well.

  * For ao1990, we narrow to three countries out of the nine where Portuguese is an official language.

  * For oxendict, we are about to widen it from "en-GB" to "en" because there is anecdotal evidence for "en-IE". But aren't there about sixty countries where English is an official language?

  So two out of sixty and we widen it in case of English, three out of nine and we narrow it in case of Portuguese. Where is the logic here?

  5. Actually, if the subtag must be narrowed to the countries that ratified the AO1990, there should be seven prefixes, not three.

  According to the Portuguese Wikipedia article, the countries that ratified the AO1990 are:

    Brazil / Cabo Verde / Guinea-Bissau / Mozambique / Portugal / São Tomé and Príncipe / East Timor.

    That leaves only Angola and Macau, where the situation is not clear to me.

    The Wikipedia article currently says that Angola requested a three-year moratorium for ratification, "to expire in 2013", and that Macau intends to adopt the AO1990 "by the end of 2012".

    We are 2015 now. Clearly we're looking at outdated information.

    We could of course find out what the current situation is, but wouldn't it be easier to stick to plain "pt" instead?

   6. To summarize: please add one to the number of people that are of the opinion that ao1990 should be registered with "Prefix: pt".

   Luc Pardon

Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list