Registration request for new subtags for Portuguese orthographies

Luc Pardon lucp at
Thu Mar 26 17:49:33 CET 2015

On 26-03-15 15:55, Doug Ewell wrote:
> I can live with "Prefix: pt-PT", at least for now.

So can I, but only because it doesn't affect me. I am less convinced
that it's a good idea.

> I didn't get the sense that this variant was only expected to modify
> Portuguese Portuguese, and not Brazilian or Angolan or Mozambican
> Portuguese, either in the short or long term.

That seems exactly right. I read [1] that "the purpose [of ao1990] is to
create a unified orthography for the Portuguese language, to be used by
all the countries that have Portuguese as their official language."

Tying it to a specific country (with a prefix) seems to defeat that very
purpose. Why would we (i.e. this list) want to do that?

Also, with "Prefix: pt-PT", we take away the possibility of writing
"pt-ao1990". Why would that be a good idea? On the other hand, and
unless I'm mistaken, with "Prefix: pt", Shawn can use "pt-PT-ao1990" if
he wants to.

I agree that this list shouldn't try to track ratification or adoption,
and I agree even more about the wringer. Therefore it would be most
considerate to register all the prefixes up front, but then I see even
less reason not to stick to "Prefix: pt" from the start.

If "pt-PT" it must be, please add at least Brazil and Cabo Verde as
well, they adopted it even earlier than Portugal and the transition is
well under way [2].

Luc Pardon



More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list