Region subtags and orthographic variants (was: Re: registration requests re Portuguese)
petercon at microsoft.com
Wed Apr 15 04:31:51 CEST 2015
Doug, I understood him to be saying that having region-qualified prefix field values in the records for any of the three Portuguese-related registrations under discussion is not useful.
From: Ietf-languages [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 10:24 AM
Subject: Region subtags and orthographic variants (was: Re: registration requests re Portuguese)
[Meta: I've changed the Subject line, but I'm not tagging it OT since it's relevant to the debate surrounding region subtags in Prefix fields, which is the major blocking issue for the Portuguese variants.]
Yury <yury dot tarasievich at gmail dot com> wrote:
>> OK, I thought you were arguing that region subtags in general were
>> unnecessary. I agree that they add no value as part of the Prefix
>> fields of the proposed variant subtags.
> Unnecessary (not helping) when official rulesets are involved, like in
> <pt> case discussed. In other analogous cases, too, possibly.
That's not what I said. What I said was, it adds no value to specify "pt-PT", "pt-BR", "pt-ST", etc. *in the Prefix fields of these registrations*.
If you are still arguing that region subtags *in tags* are unnecessary when the orthography is specified, then we are back at square one.
Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO 🇺🇸
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
More information about the Ietf-languages