W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: People's names

From: Mark Davis <mark.davis@icu-project.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 18:49:04 -0800
Message-ID: <440268A0.7060204@icu-project.org>
To: Debbie Garside <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>
CC: 'Martin Duerst' <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, 'Misha Wolf' <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>, newsml-2@yahoogroups.com, www-international@w3.org

In my experience, precisely the reverse is true. Ask for the whole name, 
as the user wants, unless you really, really want components.

Mark

Debbie Garside wrote:
> Martin Wrote:
>
>   
>> Also, even for some very simple cases, I often wish applications
>> would allow two or more name forms. The simplest example is conferences:
>> Provide a field for the name as you want it on letters, invoices, and
>> so on, and another field for the name as you want it on your nametag.
>>     
>
> Surely everyone knows that in designing this type of DB you break it down to
> the smallest components and that way you can "stitch" it together anyway you
> want...  
>
> Always include (at least):
>
> [Title]
> [Initial]
> [Name]
> [Surname]
>
> Making sure that you allow for all eventualities (in field length) in the
> Title field (this is where most people go wrong in db design)
>
> The main problem people have in designing databases is that they do not look
> to the "end product" first.
>
> Regards
>
> Debbie
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: www-international-request@w3.org [mailto:www-international-
>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Martin Duerst
>> Sent: 25 February 2006 13:46
>> To: Mark Davis; Misha Wolf
>> Cc: newsml-2@yahoogroups.com; www-international@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: People's names
>>
>>
>> At 01:47 06/02/25, Mark Davis wrote:
>>  >
>>  >I don't know what the scope of the source document is, but this seems
>> like a case of over-engineering, unless they are simply meant as "possible
>> examples". Most of these items would be useful only in extremely
>> specialized applications. For the vast majority of applications, a simple
>> <name>Dr. Jonas T. Sulk III</name>field suffices, without trying to break
>> it up into pieces. Delving into surname, baptismal names, Mob nicknames
>> (Misha "Lefty" Wolf), Satanic-ritual aliases, and the like become hugely
>> complicated and difficult to manage. Beyond the simple name, the other
>> most
>> useful one we've found is the <sortby>Sulk, Jonas T.</sortby>.
>>
>> Well, yes, but one thing is that Misha is working on news, where people's
>> names turn up in all forms and shapes. This is different from a simple
>> database.
>>
>> Also, even for some very simple cases, I often wish applications
>> would allow two or more name forms. The simplest example is conferences:
>> Provide a field for the name as you want it on letters, invoices, and
>> so on, and another field for the name as you want it on your nametag.
>>
>>  >The discussion of pronunciation seems somewhat muddled by not
>> recognizing
>> that there are at least a couple of different goals. For most commercial
>> uses, a more typical, and more useful, expression would be what people
>> actually say their name sounds like. What people usually use in practice
>> depends on their source language; a very large number of people are
>> unfamiliar with IPA. For example, my wife's name is "Gundelfinger"; she is
>> very used to writing "sounds like gun-Dell-finger". For a text-to-speech
>> application, on the other hand, IPA would be clearly more suitable.
>>
>> And then there are people who prefer their name to be pronounced
>> 'natively'. Having "Martin" pronounced in an English or German
>> way in the middle of a French sentence just doesn't work because
>> it sounds like the French female form of that name (Martine).
>>
>>
>> Regards,    Martin.
>>     
>
>
>
>
>   
Received on Monday, 27 February 2006 02:49:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:17:06 GMT