Additionally, my argument is based on what we have right NOW; three fields. I can't base it on a Single Field or any other design that is not what we have to contend with.  And i can promise you this even the Single field will not stop the argument. You will still xradman and others arguing Gong Li instead of Li gong.

We are ALWAYS going to have problems as long as people focus on culture and not data. Culture is local, data is not.

Skip

Rho:
You would be absolutely WRONG. but this was directed at Smee, not you. But since you chose to butt in.

The CORRECT parsing would be Lavaun/Vondale/Elzay.See what parsing base on culture gets you, WRONG data. It is now correctly poarsed both to A/B/C and to culture,but this is a fine example that the cultural answer solves NOTHING.

Now let me complicate the issue for you

Lavonne Vondale Elzay Magly

Skip

Fly:

The only culture part is that of three fields, which I don't control. I deal with what I am given. The programmer establishes all of the fields. Now this where I run out of patience with your cultural argument, Fly. Why might the programmer have used three fields do you suppose. Ummmmmm because he is a Yank maybe, and the Program is based in the US of A, not the UK. So it is for you to follow, if the program were written by a Brit and based in the UK I expect I would be using your cultural issues. It is for YOU to follow and get with the program instead of trying to cram yopur culture down somebody's throat.

I try to be patient and give an answer that is beased strcitly on data. Youy can't supply an answer that is data-based it always goes to culture. Give it up.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Rho:
You would be absolutely WRONG. but this was directed at Smee, not you. But since you chose to butt in.

The CORRECT parsing would be Lavaun/Vondale/Elzay.

I have in no word said what the correct parsing would be. How can I be wrong then?

Because of theis statement

"If we would parse it now as Lavaun//Vondale Elzay, it would be Lavaun/Vondale Elzay. So we would gain a little bit less confusion"

Less confusion for whom. It might make it less confusing for those of you in the Euro culture.

That parsing woulkd be totally inappropriate in either case, Rho. It may be appropriate according to yours, because you would setup 2 fields to accomodate Euro culture, but guess what Lavaun is not European. She was a native born American and Vondale was her middle name. As i commented before i am sure that the three fields were setup by Ken because he is American, but from my POV that was irrelevant. I simply deal with data, three datasets, use the three fields, if you can document something different even for an initial Contribution, then great I am all for it.

But to create CLARITY for Euros who, I won't make the commentI am thinking about, while totally ignoring and causing more confusion elsewhere is just plain...well...selfish in a very disgusting way. At least with A/B/C I have allowed for different parsing variations with documentation. You would just totally ignore any other culture than your own. Is this out of arrogance, laziness or something else .

Skip<unbelievable>

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Because of theis statement

"If we would parse it now as Lavaun//Vondale Elzay, it would be Lavaun/Vondale Elzay. So we would gain a little bit less confusion"

Less confusion for whom. It might make it less confusing for those of you in the Euro culture.

That parsing woulkd be totally inappropriate in either case, Rho. It may be appropriate according to yours, because you would setup 2 fields to accomodate Euro culture, but guess what Lavaun is not European. She was a native born American and Vondale was her middle name. As i commented before i am sure that the three fields were setup by Ken because he is American, but from my POV that was irrelevant. I simply deal with data, three datasets, use the three fields, if you can document something different even for an initial Contribution, then great I am all for it.

But to create CLARITY for Euros who, I won't make the commentI am thinking about, while totally ignoring and causing more confusion elsewhere is just plain...well...selfish in a very disgusting way. At least with A/B/C I have allowed for different parsing variations with documentation. You would just totally ignore any other culture than your own. Is this out of arrogance, laziness or something else .

Skip<unbelievable>

Have you noticed the "if" at the beginning of the sentence. There is another "if" in the sentence before the one that you have quoted. Again how can I be wrong in those two statements?

Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
And as long nobody tells me that I have to count words, I'm quite happy with the current system.

You have to count words. 

I am actually quite happy with the current system as well.  You see a name, you parse it as best you can, and hope for the best.  If a question comes up, address it and move on.  If we could all do that, I think the system...while not perfect...would work fine.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
And as long nobody tells me that I have to count words, I'm quite happy with the current system.

You have to count words. 

I am actually quite happy with the current system as well.  You see a name, you parse it as best you can, and hope for the best.  If a question comes up, address it and move on.  If we could all do that, I think the system...while not perfect...would work fine.

I would still be happy with the current system, but then you have told me to count words.
I do agree about the rest of your statement.