Registration request for new subtags for Portuguese orthographies
petercon at microsoft.com
Wed Mar 25 17:33:07 CET 2015
Michael, consider Shawn's assertion: I need pt-PT-ao1990; I don't need some hypothetical refinements of that. Don't you see how this is analogous to es-419? You objected for years that there isn't one Latin American Spanish but several, and yet localizers responded that they have scenarios in which the requirement is to tag content as merely Latin American Spanish. Shawn is telling you the same thing now.
It took something like five years to finally get a tag for Latin American Spanish. It should have taken two weeks. I really hope we're not going to have a repeat of that experience.
From: Ietf-languages [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Shawn Steele
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 9:07 AM
To: Michael Everson; ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
Subject: RE: Registration request for new subtags for Portuguese orthographies
> I was asking you lot to make suggestions. I have objected to the underspecification. I would like you to offer suggestions as to alternatives which would make sense to you. I did not want to get into trouble specifying things that might conflict or be impossible in the kinds of implementations you are working with.
For my scenario it is not underspecified. For Andrew's proposed solution is totally fine for my needs. I can't invent multiple variant solutions for scenarios I don't have.
> So, again, if a user in Portugal wants his variants of ao1990 and a user in Brazil wants his variants of ao1990, how would you propose to respond to those user requirements?
I don't, those aren't my user requirements. They're your hypothetical user's requirements, but I don't have any requests or suggestions or hints of that being a real problem. Since it's your scenario, I thought you might be able to make suggestions.
I need pt-PT-ao1990. Should your user need pt-BZ-ao1990, that'd be possible. I presume, however that you mean "three users in Brazil (or Portugal) want different variants of ao1990" since if everyone wanted the same thing we wouldn't be having this conversation. Again, I don't have that scenario. I grasp that there are apparently differences I don't quite follow, however:
A) There are subtle variants of English & German that nobody ever bothers tagging in practice. (Indeed the conversation mentioned those earlier). I'm not qualified to say how "important" further discrimination of Portuguese variants is.
B) Should someone need more specificity, then nothing about ao1990 would preclude that. When such a scenario is identified and proposed, there could be an ao1990-silva (totally hypothetical variation codified by some guy named silva) or ao1990-featureX or ao1990-featureA-featureX (though I can't imagine that level of detail being practical).
I can imagine tons of things, but it's not my problem, I don't have the scenarios, I don't have the understanding of the detail you're concerned about, and those details are far too specific for my needs.
My scenario is that when a developer updates their app to present a user with a post-reform localization and the user says "gee, the government taught that to my kids in school, but I don't want to play that way", that the developer has the ability to revert the change and provide tags to discriminate for their pro-reform and anti-reform user base. AFAIK nobody has requested "gee, I love the reform, except for X".
I have only two variants to worry about. For that I need two variant tags (or one I suppose would do).
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
More information about the Ietf-languages