[Ietf-languages] Re: Braille types

[Hugh Paterson III <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Doug for these comments.

> The definition of the Prefix field cannot be changed except by revision
of RFC 5646. That’s not to say that a revision has never been considered,
or could never happen, but the IETF process does make such an effort
difficult and unappetizing.

I understand the unappetizing nature of revisions.
1. Is there a list of "things to modify" in the next revision process
whenever that happens?
2. Is there an amendment process; or erata process which might "fix" this
without major revision?

- Hugh

On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 10:17 PM Doug Ewell <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hugh Paterson III wrote:
>
> > The issue with the -fonipa variant tag is that it doesn't specify
> > which version of IPA is used in the text.
>
> In the 20 years since 'fonipa' was registered, I don’t think I’ve heard
> anyone complain that it was unusable due to not being specific enough.
>
> > Why is the domain of a subtag the language entity identifier instead
> > of optionally being a modifier of the script entity identifier? If
> > subtags can be scoped so that they can only be used in conjunction
> > with certain language identifiers, why can't they also be scoped so
> > that they can only be used with certain script identifiers? With this
> > line of reasoning I am not talking about "across languages" I am
> > talking about across the script "Brai" and wherever/whenever "Brai" is
> > used.
>
> The Prefix field is defined in Section 3.1.8 as containing “a valid
> language tag” and not an extended language range (RFC 4647, Section 2.2)
> such as "*-Brai". One might make a strong argument that this was
> shortsighted, that a variant subtag might bind much more strongly to script
> than to language and a Prefix should be able to reflect that.
>
> The definition of the Prefix field cannot be changed except by revision of
> RFC 5646. That’s not to say that a revision has never been considered, or
> could never happen, but the IETF process does make such an effort difficult
> and unappetizing.
>
> > What is common across language contexts in which Braille is used as a
> > script, is that they have (usually---at least) two different
> > transcription systems upon which digital text decisions are made.
> > There exists a contracted form and an uncontracted form. It seems more
> > efficient to create two or three subtags which are scoped to a script
> > than to create 200-300 subtags which are scoped to languages.
>
> OK, I’ll take a swing at that pitch.
>
> Yes, you're right and I was wrong, to an extent — if there is a practical
> need to provide discrete BCP 47 tagging for uncontracted and contracted
> varieties of Braille as used for each of 60 to 100 or more languages, then
> it would be better to provide one subtag for “uncontracted” and another for
> “contracted,” and possibly (though less convincingly) a third for
> “personal, idiosyncratic, seldom-published shorthand,” than to multiply X
> by Y and propose 200 to 300 variant subtags most of which will never be
> used. (Note that there are only 139 variant subtags in existence today.)
>
> Some sort of subtag values that convey “uncontracted” versus “contracted”
> would be preferable, in my mind, to “level1” and “level2,” which imply
> those are the commonly used names. If many other language-specific
> implementations of Braille use the terms “Grade 1” and “Grade 2” as English
> Braille does, then those might be suitable.
>
> > When thinking about subtags, it may be that 200-300 subtags are
> > required. But it will likely be more than that because, as is the case
> > with French Braille, there are different "orthography" variants for
> > different time periods. I haven't personally investigated the
> > situation beyond French, but suspect that there are "evolutionary
> > stages" in other languages as well.
>
> Of course there are, but whether there is demand for BCP 47 tagging of
> those historical stages is another matter. The Registry is not a research
> work documenting all known language varieties. It exists for practical
> tagging purposes.
>
> “Baseball” was originally spelled “base ball,” and later “base-ball.”
> Words like “today,” “tonight,” and “tomorrow” were spelled with hyphens as
> recently as the 1940s. Not all orthographic varieties throughout time make
> the case for being taggable differences.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org
>
>
>