Region subtags and orthographic variants (was: Re: registration requests re Portuguese)
Mark Davis ☕️
mark at macchiato.com
Thu Apr 16 13:52:34 CEST 2015
I would rather see you approve pt-XX as you indicate than to let this
process drag on forever. As I wrote, "the prefixes are only advisory
anyway; nothing normative". So in the end it doesn't matter that much.
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com>
> On 15 Apr 2015, at 17:57, Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com> wrote:
> > If one wants to indicate dialectal variations (accent, lexicon,
> grammar), then (e.g.) "pt-PT" may be useful.
> > If one want to indicate a particular orthographic variation, they may
> choose to use "pt-PT", but that is not a reliable indicator of orthographic
> choices in general usage; it may be within a limited usage context (e.g.
> internal to some app or some managed corpus), but not in the general case.
> But "pt-ao1990" can be used as a reliable indicator of an orthographic
> variation in the general case — no region subtag required.
> > Similarly, the variant subtag "pt-ao1990" is not going to be a reliable
> indicator of non-orthographic distinctions.
> Right, and since the options it allows are dialectal in nature (aluminium
> vs aluminum) they are very likely going to be preferred one way or another
> by region, I continue to favour pt-BR, pt-CV, pt-PT as prefixes for this.
> It does not seem likely that pt-ao1990 could be useful to anyone.
> > If one wants to indicate both dialectal and orthographic variations,
> then both region and variant subtags, e.g., "pt-PT-ao1990" may be useful.
> Since that’s what the options are for, this seems self-evident to me.
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages