Registration request for new subtags for Portuguese orthographies

Michael Everson everson at
Mon Mar 23 18:36:41 CET 2015

On 23 Mar 2015, at 16:39, Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele at> wrote:

> Which seems to request a singular reference, though the actual registry doesn't include it.  Nowhere in the RFC does it say that a reference is necessary, nor provide guidance as to the perceived "quality" of the reference; this part of the form seems to be informational (though "book or article" seems a bit antiquated nowadays.)  Regardless, a reference has been provided.

Again, for things like the French Academy dictionaries and Oxford spelling, we have reliable sources. 

The problem with these Portuguese decrees is that there isn’t something reliable. Why is this problematic? Because these are intended to be normative (many of our subtag descriptions are not). So I have sought something reliable. 

The AO1990 is the most problematic of them because it’s just a set of recommendations, vague enough so that its implementations are conflicting. And even where there are options within the “single” orthography, isn’t it the case that users of AO1990 who live in Brazil might use different options than users in Europe might? If “fact” can be written both “fato” and “facto” in the same orthography, then this is not analogous to, for instance, UK/Oxford/Canadian/etc “colour” vs US “color”. 

Why shouldn’t this be addressed? 

Michael Everson *

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list