registration requests re Portuguese
everson at evertype.com
Sat Apr 11 00:18:06 CEST 2015
On 10 Apr 2015, at 19:16, cowan at ccil.org 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.
Was it? When? By whom? If it was me I do not remember 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.
Because it offers options, and those options are likely to be chosen differently in different countries. In effect there is not
> 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.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
More information about the Ietf-languages