<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/">
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEEDINFO "
title="NEEDINFO - Portuguese UI and dictionaries: AO (Acordo Ortográfico da Língua Portuguesa de 1990) and pre-AO"
href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=126176#c8">Comment # 8</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEEDINFO "
title="NEEDINFO - Portuguese UI and dictionaries: AO (Acordo Ortográfico da Língua Portuguesa de 1990) and pre-AO"
href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=126176">bug 126176</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:macieluxcitania@gmail.com" title="Rogério Maciel <macieluxcitania@gmail.com>"> <span class="fn">Rogério Maciel</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to Rogério Maciel from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=126176#c7">comment #7</a>)
<span class="quote">> (In reply to V Stuart Foote from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=126176#c6">comment #6</a>)
> > Personally, I'm not a fan. Not as an objection to supporting non-Standards
> > body compliant localizations or archaic forms, rather over issues of
> > implementation and sustainability.
> >
> > The history and applicability of the changes are widley known [1][2]. By
> > locale, claims of "majority" not using standards will quickly fade as
> > irrelevant. Support becomes an academic endeavor.
> >
> > As to localization supporting CPLC members, their "Instituto Internacional
> > da Língua Portuguesa" (IILP) seems to be becoming the CPLC's standards body,
> > and provides localization / orthographic variations [3] appropriate in
> > context of the AO. Fertile ground for preparing "standards" (CPLC) compliant
> > localization.
> >
> > IMHO => WF
> >
> > (of course motivated volunteers with an interest are always welcome to
> > tackle it).
> >
> > =-ref-=
> >
> > [1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforms_of_Portuguese_orthography">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforms_of_Portuguese_orthography</a>
> > [2]
> > <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/</a>
> > Portuguese_Language_Orthographic_Agreement_of_1990
> > [3] <a href="http://voc.iilp.cplp.org/">http://voc.iilp.cplp.org/</a>
>
> Ok.I understand and know all of that.
>
> My simple question is:
>
> Is it possible to have the PRE-AO Portuguese version of L.O. or not?
>
> If so, i am prepared to Translate L.O. to PRE-AO Portuguese version.
>
> THanks</span >
" ... By locale, claims of "majority" not using standards will quickly fade as
<span class="quote">> irrelevant. ..."</span >
And by-the-way, it's not a claim but a fact.
Furthermore, that abject, anti-Democratic Tyrannic IMPOSITION to The Portuguese
People of the DESTRUCTION of a (Our)Language that has 9 Centuries IT WILL BE
STOPPED. Mark my words.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>