- From: Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:39:50 -0400
- To: Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>
- Cc: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Dmitry Ulanov <dulanov@gmail.com>, Aperture Developers <aperture-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>, semantic-web@w3.org, Antoni Mylka <antoni.mylka@gmail.com>, Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com>, Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
Actually, I have a comment, which may well have bearing on the other vcard work. This: > The family name of an Object represented by this Contact. These > applies to people that have more than one given name. The 'first' one > is considered 'the' given name (see nameGiven) property. All > additional ones are considered 'additional' names. The name inherited > from parents is the 'family name'. e.g. For Dr. John Phil Paul > Stevenson Jr. M.D. A.C.P. we have contact with: honorificPrefix: > 'Dr.', nameGiven: 'John', nameAdditional: 'Phil', nameAdditional: > 'Paul', nameFamily: 'Stevenson', honorificSuffix: 'Jr.', > honorificSuffix: 'M.D.', honorificSuffix: 'A.C.P.'. These properties > form an equivalent of the compound 'N' property as defined in RFC 2426 > Sec. 3.1.2 ... I think is poorly defined. It breaks even for simple Western names like "J. Edgar Hoover." I'd call "J. Edgar" the given name. Assuming a "first" name has any fundamental meaning is problematic, particularly in cultures where the first name is in fact the family name ;-) Also, I think the additional names in the examples above are in fact ordered. Bruce
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2007 18:39:50 UTC