Offline: Registration request for new subtags for Portuguese orthographies

joao at joao at
Wed Mar 25 00:04:20 CET 2015

Kent wrote:
> Michael Everson wrote:
>> This is exactly wrong. A user in BR or a user in PT might know exactly
>> what
>> features they prefer. The problem is that this subtag on its own is an
>> umbrella for all the options, and no writer of Portuguese wants his text
>> to
>> wander randomly through the options. This is precisely why I said that
>> "ao1990" is practically identical to a raw "pt", because it's a
>> collection
>> of features which have been used in Portuguese from time to time. What,
>> "fato"
>> and "facto" should just be identical in the spell-checker? That's really
>> not
>> how users expect spell-checkers to work.
> I agree.
> /Kent K

Particularly for this example it actually is. In both pre-ao1990 and in
ao1990 "facto" and "fato" are valid nouns (in all Portuguese speaking
countries, I usually just refer to Portugal or Brazil because they are
actually the most different).

Portugal, pre-ao1990: "fato" means suit, "facto" means fact
Brazil, pre-ao1990: "fato" means suit or fact
ao1990: "fato" means suit or fact, "facto" means fact

So, there's no situation where a spellchecker of any currently used
Portuguese could actually mark any of these as a mistake. Yes, in
sentences like "Isso é um fato muito interessante." you'd need more
context to understand the context.

On the António/Antônio, they are also both considered correct and should
not be marked as errors by a spellchecker.

For "pára" (from the verb parar - to stop) the situation is different:

pre-ao1990: "pára" is a verb
ao1990: "pára" is an error and a spell-checker should recommend "para"

Any other situation you'd like clarified?


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list