2010/10/5 Doug Blank <doug.blank@gmail.com>
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Tim Lyons <guy.linton@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 Oct 2010, at 15:15, Doug Blank wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Tim Lyons <guy.linton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Benny Malengier wrote:
>>>> Well, call name is the given name you use, so there is no need for
>>>> splitting
>>>> up given name and slowing down entry of people. I myself have 3 given
>>>> names,
>>>> many people here have. You will see that call name becomes red if it is
>>>> not
>>>> a part of the given name.
>>> A given name is Robert, but the name I am called by (I presume this is
>>> what
>>> is meant by callname) is Rob. Does that mean that my callname would
>>> become
>>> red? If so, seems strange. [Put another way, what do you mean by "part
>>> of"?].
>> FYI, callname is the English translation of "rufname"... it isn't a
>> nickname but a part of a name with a technical meaning:
>> http://www.firstnamesgermany.com/vorname-and-rufname-about-german-given-names/
>> Perhaps we should not translate "rufname" but leave it so as not to
>> confuse its purpose (does any culture call it "callname"?). I believe
>> that the new revised name object has a place for nickname, but I
>> haven't followed the development.
> Thanks, I didn't understand what was meant by callname - perhaps as you say
> there is no culture that calls it callname!

I think that there may be a few cultures that use (or did use) rufname/callname.

> Is it really worth having a build-in mechanism for one specific cultural
> usage? Why not call this field Nickname? Then it could reasonably be used
> for Rufname if applicable? This would seem to be more consistent with
> GEDCOM, where every <personal_name_structure> can have (one or more)
> nicknames?

This has been discussed at length over the years. I think Benny's
latest work represents the state of the art in name representation,
across cultures.

Thanks Doug :-)

As we add nickname field, there is no longer a reason to misuse callname for nickname :-)
The idea is that we can underline the part of the name that is the callname in reports. We could extend the idea of callname as a part of a given name, so that Rob instead of Robert works, but I'd vote against that, as legally, Rob has no meaning, and underlining a part of a name is perhaps also not very nice.

In name representation, it would be Robert ("Rob") Smith, if you select the "nickname" way of name display, whereas typically callname is used to avoid printing all the given names.

Note also that the field turning red does not mean you are not allowed to use it to store Rob, if that is what you want to do with that field. The red indicates we cannot use the field as it is meant to be used in some reports (underlining), just like a longitude we cannot parse cannot be used on a map, or a red date cannot be used in date comparison.


Also, our goal is not to cater to GEDCOM, but to realize that we have
to work with it for the time being. Coming up with a strategy for
going through GEDCOM is definitely part of the discussion that we have
had, and continue to have.


Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports
standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1,  ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 & L3.
Spend less time writing and  rewriting code and more time creating great
experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today.
Gramps-devel mailing list