Registration request for new subtags for Portuguese orthographies

[Phillips, Addison]

I support the registration of these subtags.

I appreciate the need to ensure that subtags are not hypothetical in nature. But I think the requesters have shown sufficient evidence that these are not.

Addison

(Sent from my Fire HDX)


On March 20, 2015, at 6:40 AM, João Miguel Neves <joao at silvaneves.org> wrote:

Hi Michael,

The "acordo ortográfico" has been mandated by law for all public
administration procurement and all school manuals in Portugal. I joined
this list because of this, but I've basically just given up as in the
projects I'm working not using the new ortography was not an option
anymore (and nobody wanted to maintain it). In articles in newspapers,
most newspapers have adopted the new ortography with some columnists
still using a disclaimer that they haven't adopted the new ortography.

Other coutries that were part of the agreement have delayed it again,
but it's not true about Portugal anymore (as it was discussed the last
time when the law had just started having its effects).

The adopted version was the 3rd adjustment to the original agreement.
Published dictionaries use the new orthography, only online ones
actually let you choose the old one. Most software I know that has
european Portuguese as a language choice is already using the new
ortography.

I can provide any references if needed.

Best regards,
João

Em 20/03/2015 08:08, Mark Davis ☕️ escreveu:
> I agree with your reasoning.
>
>
> Mark <https://google.com/+MarkDavis>
> /
> /
> /— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —/
> //
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Peter Constable
> <petercon at microsoft.com <mailto:petercon at microsoft.com>> wrote:
>
>     Michael:
>
>     Where does BCP 5646 stipulate that a wordlist must be provided? It
>     doesn't! Where are the wordlists of all the various registered
>     subtags?
>
>     You appear to be making the mistake (as you have done before) that
>     the intent of BCP 47 language tags is to catalog linguistic
>     entities. That is not its purpose. Rather, the purpose is to
>     provide metadata elements that are declarations on the part of
>     authors as to the linguistic nature of content, or to express user
>     linguistic preferences. Just as in the case of "Latin American
>     Spanish", whether or not there is an objectively identifiable
>     definition or consensus regarding what wordlist conforms to
>     "Acordo Ortográfico da Língua Portuguesa de 1990" is not a
>     necessary requirement. Rather, what matters is that there are
>     authors who would like to characterize their content as
>     "pt-ao1990" --- that is, as Portuguese with spelling based on
>     Acordo Ortográfico da Língua Portuguesa de 1990 --- and users who
>     would like to indicate a preference for the same.
>
>     The request is not coming from an interest in extending some
>     catalog or from some hypothetical usage scenario. The request is
>     coming from real needs in data interchange.
>
>     It would be reasonable to ask if there is any reliable source for
>     a representative wordlist for Acordo Ortográfico da Língua
>     Portuguesa de 1990, as that would be a useful reference to include
>     in the registration. But I don't see a reason to object to the
>     requested registration if the same cannot be provided.
>
>
>
>     Peter
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Ietf-languages [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no
>     <mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no>] On Behalf Of
>     Michael Everson
>     Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 3:04 PM
>     To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion
>     Subject: Re: Registration request for new subtags for Portuguese
>     orthographies
>
>     On 19 Mar 2015, at 21:51, Andrew Glass (WINDOWS)
>     <Andrew.Glass at microsoft.com <mailto:Andrew.Glass at microsoft.com>>
>     wrote:
>
>     > Michael, is the full text of the reform authoritative?
>     >
>     > http://www.portaldalinguaportuguesa.org/?action=acordo&version=1990
>
>     It’s a guideline. It’s not an instantiation. There is a real
>     question as to how well, where, and how widely this “Acordo” which
>     has been controversial from the beginning has been implemented.
>
>     Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Ietf-languages mailing list
>     Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no <mailto:Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no>
>     http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>     _______________________________________________
>     Ietf-languages mailing list
>     Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no <mailto:Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no>
>     http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20150320/61c1fe97/attachment-0001.html>