4 ms·

Or you could just have fields for "full name" and "preferred name".

hunter2_ 4y ago
What if I prefer Firstname in casual settings, Mr. Lastname in fancy settings, and Firstname Lastname as a fallback when the setting isn't so obvious? For people with such preferences, a schema of prefix/first/last actually does make more sense than a schema of legal/preferred. But overall, for global optimization, I'm a fan of legal/preferred.
- thesuitonym 4y ago
  Then when you enter preferred name, you put the name you would prefer.
  - hunter2_ 4y ago
    I'm saying I prefer different things in different contexts. Like if I am a student named John Bob Doe, and I set my preferred name to John in the school info system so all the authenticated websites say "Hi, John" in the personalized user header rather than something more verbose, that doesn't mean I prefer that they use only "John" for all but the most legal of matters. I want them to use Mr. Doe when etiquette suggests same, John Doe when introducing me to an audience (say, on stage or in the news), John B. Doe on my diploma, etc. This nuance is what the prefix/first/mid/last schema inherently provides for, in cultures that utilize it. You'd need a whole suite of preferred name fields otherwise. That said, global inclusivity does seem to be more important.
- kwhitefoot 4y ago
  I suspect that you are conflating first with given and last with family. Not everyone in the world does it that way. Icelanders use patronymics not family name anyway, the Spanish use something rather more complicated, Chinese names are family first, etc.
  - hunter2_ 4y ago
    I'm aware of those things, but I'm just saying that there's no silver bullet given cultural preferences to compose a variety of forms based on omitting/concatenating discrete parts that can't be adequately stored in a globally-reasonable schema. The best we can do is compromise on (or completely do away with) any preference for rule-based composition, and instead just echo whole names without recomposing them. It's fair, but it's a compromise.

What if I prefer Firstname in casual settings, Mr. Lastname in fancy settings, and Firstname Lastname as a fallback when the setting isn't so obvious? For people with such preferences, a schema of prefix/first/last actually does make more sense than a schema of legal/preferred. But overall, for global optimization, I'm a fan of legal/preferred.

thesuitonym 4y ago
Then when you enter preferred name, you put the name you would prefer.
- hunter2_ 4y ago
  I'm saying I prefer different things in different contexts. Like if I am a student named John Bob Doe, and I set my preferred name to John in the school info system so all the authenticated websites say "Hi, John" in the personalized user header rather than something more verbose, that doesn't mean I prefer that they use only "John" for all but the most legal of matters. I want them to use Mr. Doe when etiquette suggests same, John Doe when introducing me to an audience (say, on stage or in the news), John B. Doe on my diploma, etc. This nuance is what the prefix/first/mid/last schema inherently provides for, in cultures that utilize it. You'd need a whole suite of preferred name fields otherwise. That said, global inclusivity does seem to be more important.
kwhitefoot 4y ago
I suspect that you are conflating first with given and last with family. Not everyone in the world does it that way. Icelanders use patronymics not family name anyway, the Spanish use something rather more complicated, Chinese names are family first, etc.
- hunter2_ 4y ago
  I'm aware of those things, but I'm just saying that there's no silver bullet given cultural preferences to compose a variety of forms based on omitting/concatenating discrete parts that can't be adequately stored in a globally-reasonable schema. The best we can do is compromise on (or completely do away with) any preference for rule-based composition, and instead just echo whole names without recomposing them. It's fair, but it's a compromise.