Re: [Tools-discuss] Chinese name order versus surname and initial attributes in <author>

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 27 July 2021 00:38 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 351AF3A097B for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 17:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 84GIoixZDHzq for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 17:38:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46C623A0977 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 17:38:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19F19389B5; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 20:41:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id tK8JSO23ZFtB; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 20:41:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CD47389B4; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 20:41:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8558B454; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 20:38:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, Tools Team Discussion <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <51106D93-E01D-4695-8B59-B4E28A6BA215@vpnc.org>
References: <CAPt1N1nxkvx9-K8X3WktSpMDDR9pcGTuAhLacypMe-=YCN3GXw@mail.gmail.com> <51106D93-E01D-4695-8B59-B4E28A6BA215@vpnc.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 20:38:02 -0400
Message-ID: <24698.1627346282@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/vyDoZFHSVy54hHY-vo5-6ySZJFE>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Chinese name order versus surname and initial attributes in <author>
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 00:38:12 -0000

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
    >> The way that xml2rfc handles Chinese names is broken in a way that I think
    >> is really problematic. Chinese family names come first, not last. But
    >> there's no way to tell xml2rfc to use this ordering, and it uses the
    >> surname and initial on the title page. This is actually not necessary, at
    >> least for HTML output, and worse it's wrong in a way that I think is

    > Yes, we have run into this before, and it is more problematic than you state
    > because some people with Chinese names (not just Chinese authors) prefer to
    > put their given name first (the "modern" way), while others prefer to put it
    > last (the "traditional" way). There is no way to programmatically determine
    > which method was chosen.

    > To be clear, this isn't just an RFC format issue: it hits all publishing.

It seems that we need an ordering bit added then.

(The meta-problem is that we seem to be perpetually behind on fixing our XML
specifications. At least, that's what it appears to me)

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide