Robin Cover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2007-08-09 20:51 -0400: > I spent all of 12 minutes surveying the territory again, > using online (Wikipedia) sources and other available resources: > > "first" and "sur" don't quite get the job done from a > multi-cultural POV.
What exactly is wrong with "sur" from a multi-cultural POV? I agree it seems clear the replacing firstname with givenname would be an improvement. But it does not seem clear to me that replacing surname with familyname would. > Most of the names belonging to living persons (arguably?) don't > submit to that description. "given" and "family" come a lot > closer, if we have to use just two descriptors. To me, "surname" seems to have the possible advantage over familyname of not implying anything at all culturally about the name it is used to mark up other than that it is an additional name. I realize in practice "surname" and "familyname" are actually mean used to mean pretty much the same thing, and I guess that in most cultures the non-givenname is in fact a family name, but I still don't personally see any compelling case (from a multi-cultural naming perspective or from any other) in replacing surname with familyname. --Mike
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
