home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
- Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!sunic!ugle.unit.no!humpty.edb.tih.no!lumina.edb.tih.no!ketil
- From: ketil@edb.tih.no (Ketil Albertsen,TIH)
- Subject: Re: The "I" field
- Message-ID: <1993Jan12.074131.5348W@lumina.edb.tih.no>
- Sender: ketil@edb.tih.no (Ketil Albertsen,TIH)
- Organization: T I H / T I S I P
- References: <1993Jan10.120626.11429W@lumina.edb.tih.no> <726764891snz@mwassocs.demon.co.uk>
- Posting-Front-End: Winix Conference v 92.05.15 1.20 (running under MS-Windows)
- Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 07:41:27 GMT
- Lines: 33
-
- In article <726764891snz@mwassocs.demon.co.uk>, whyman@mwassocs.demon.co.uk
- (Tony Whyman) writes:
-
- [...]
- >The clause is not as precisely written as it could be. The text reads:
- >
- >"The value of a personal-name comprises the following four pieces of
- >information, the first mandatory, the others optional:
- >
- >a) The person's surname
- >
- >b) The person's given name
- >
- >c) The initials of all his names, but his surname.
- >
- >d) His generation (e.g. "Jr")."
- >
- >As it stands, it an undeniably sexist and WASP view of the world, and probably
- >ought to be challenged. However, the statement is clear as it stands. It is
- >the INITIALS parameter that is optional, but if present, the requirement is
- >clear - all the initials except the last.
-
- Sorry, you lost me. How can the statement "the first [piece] mandatory,
- the others optional" justify the conclusion "It is the INITIALS parameter
- that is optional" ? (That is, with emphasis on "initials")
-
- Are you saying that "The person's given name" and "His generation
- (e.g. "Jr")" is any less optional than the initials information?
-
- To me it is 100% clear that the surname is mandatory, the given name
- optional, the initials optional, the generation optional. Am I wrong?
-
- K.Albertsen
-