Revised records and registration forms for Portuguese variants

Luc Pardon lucp at
Sun Mar 29 13:10:05 CEST 2015

On 28-03-15 18:24, Doug Ewell wrote:
> Kent Karlsson wrote:
>> This tries to achieve what I suggested, but does *not* achieve it,
>> since "Prefix" is used the mechanism.
> I continue to disagree fundamentally with Kent's premise that "AO1990 as
> implemented in Portugal" and "AO1990 as implemented in Brazil" are so
> different that they should require separate variant subtags.

   The original request for "ao1990" had "Prefix: pt" [1], and this
happens to match the intent of the designers of the Accordo. I'd propose
we stick with that, unless and until we are shown hard proof that
regional variants do indeed exist.

  If they do exist, it should be perfectly possible to produce the usual
evidence: reference to published description, wordlist, birth
certificates of the requester and his ancestors up to the third
generation, whatever.

  There is really no need to speculate. AO1990 has been in actual use
for several years now, across the globe and not only in the countries
that formally ratified it. Any regional variants have had plenty of time
to evolve in the wild, so if they exist, it should be possible to go
catch them and show them to the list.

  It doesn't seem fair to me if we would allow all kinds of things to
sneak into the repository without any shred of evidence, based only on
assumptions, and then turn around and make an actual user fight the
usual uphill battle when he needs an additional prefix or a new variant
subtag later on. It would be even more unfair if the assumptions should
turn out to be wrong, because then the "War for Prefix pt-XX" would only
be needed because we'd have mistakenly narrowed the scope of the
original request.

   Luc Pardon


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list