Registration request for new subtags for Portuguese orthographies

Phillips, Addison addison at lab126.com
Thu Mar 26 04:54:25 CET 2015


> So if Shawn (and who else?) needs pt-PT-ao1990, wouldn't it be better to
> register this with
>     Prefix: pt-PT
> Would we need other prefixes at this point? Could we add other prefixes if
> we need them later?

Additional prefixes can be added or existing prefixes "broadened". For example, we can change the prefix from "pt-PT" to "pt". Or the prefix "pt-TL" (for example: I chose something other than Brazil for variety's sake) could be added. This is covered by Section 3.1.8:

--
   Otherwise, changes (additions,
   deletions, or modifications) to the set of 'Prefix' fields MAY be
   registered, as long as they strictly widen the range of language tags
   that are recommended.  For example, a 'Prefix' with the value "be-
   Latn" (Belarusian, Latin script) could be replaced by the value "be"
   (Belarusian) but not by the value "ru-Latn" (Russian, Latin script)
   or the value "be-Latn-BY" (Belarusian, Latin script, Belarus), since
   these latter either change or narrow the range of suggested tags.
--

Addison

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ietf-languages [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On
> Behalf Of "Martin J. Dürst"
> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 6:56 PM
> To: João Miguel Neves; ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Registration request for new subtags for Portuguese
> orthographies
> 
> I'm not totally up to date about the rules for declaring/updating prefix fields,
> but it looks to me like we might get closer to a solution by looking at the
> prefixes.
> 
> On 2015/03/26 01:51, João Miguel Neves wrote:
> > Just for curiosity, the original proposal (you can also track the
> > discussion from there):
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.languages/9194
> 
> The form there (and the one at
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.languages/10392 that's officially
> discussed here this time) has
>     Prefix: pt
> It seems to me that (part of?) what Michael is arguing is that pt-ao1990 is
> very wide and fuzzy, and therefore not very useful.
> 
> > On 25/03/2015 16:33, Peter Constable wrote:
> >> Michael, consider Shawn's assertion: I need pt-PT-ao1990; I don't need
> some hypothetical refinements of that.
> 
> So if Shawn (and who else?) needs pt-PT-ao1990, wouldn't it be better to
> register this with
>     Prefix: pt-PT
> Would we need other prefixes at this point? Could we add other prefixes if
> we need them later?
> 
> Regards,   Martin.
> 
> 
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> 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).
> >>
> >> -Shawn
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list