[Standards] XEP-0055 Jabber Search: first/last or given/family names?

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Mon Aug 24 18:46:09 UTC 2009


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 7/31/09 9:56 AM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> While implementing XEP-0055 Jabber Search in Telepathy, we've hit an ambiguity
> in the spec between first/last names, and given/family names.

XEP-0055 documents historical usage of a protocol that was designed in
the bad old days before anyone in the Jabber community was aware of the
issues surrounding non-Western usage. Therefore it uses terms that to me
are unhelpful (first and last) instead of terms that are truly accurate
(given and family). My interpretation is this:

1. By <first/> XEP-0055 means Given Name.

2. By <last/> XEP-0055 means Family Name.

> It's clear that to find a person with a Western name in a Jabber directory,
> you would use something like this:
> 
>     <first>Gordon</first>
>     <last>Brown</last>
> 
> or this:
> 
>     <field var='first'><value>Gordon</value></field>
>     <field var='last'><value>Brown</value></field>

Correct.

> However, names in many Asian cultures (e.g. Chinese names) don't work like
> Western names: for example, in the name "Hu Jintao", Jintao is the given name
> and Hu is the family. To search for the Chinese leader, should one use
> 
>     <field var='first'><value>Hu</value></field>
>     <field var='last'><value>Jintao</value></field>
> 
> (i.e. the field semantics are as suggested by the markup, and are really
> first name and last name), or
> 
>     <field var='first'><value>Jintao</value></field>
>     <field var='last'><value>Hu</value></field>
> 
> (i.e. the markup is by historical accident, and what was really meant is
> "family name" and "given name")?

The latter.

> Similarly, in the historical version, the fields are called <first/> and
> <last/>, although I realise this doesn't necessarily mean anything about
> their semantics.

Right.

> vCard explicitly specifies that the first component of the "N"
> (structured name) type-name (field) contains the family name, and the
> second contains the given name, like so:
> 
>     FN:Hu Jintao
>     N:Hu;Jintao
> 
>     FN:Gordon Brown
>     N:Brown;Gordon
> 
> In Telepathy, we want to propagate correct information through the framework
> to UIs: this means that in protocols that use given name/family name, we want
> to use fields x-n-given and x-n-family (in our notation), and for
> protocols that use first/last name, we want to use x-first and x-last.
> Which of these categories does XMPP fall into, in practice?

I think the intent in XEP-0055 was as I described above. What it means
in practice is another story, because I don't know how various clients
and servers have implemented the spec.

> Unhelpfully, the spec and examples in XEP-0055 v1.2 seem to be evenly
> distributed between the two models:
> 
> * XMPP Registrar Considerations: <field var='first' label='First Name'/>
> * XMPP Registrar Considerations: <field var='last' label='Family Name'/>
> * Example 7: <field var='first' label='Given Name'/>
> * Example 7: <field var='last' label='Family Name'/>
> * Example 9: <field var='first' label='First Name'/>
> * Example 9: <field var='last' label='Last Name'/>

I shall fix those so that <first/> always maps to Given Name and <last/>
always maps to Family Name.

> In particular, the XMPP Registrar registration is not even internally
> consistent!

Good point. :)

> It would be helpful if one of these could be chosen:
> 
> * Accept Example 7 (family/given) as the canonical interpretation:
>   - change Example 9 and the Registrar registration for 'first' to match it
>   - explain that the "first" and "last" naming is a historical accident, and
>     that's not really what the fields mean
> 
> * Accept Example 9 (first/last) as the canonical interpretation:
>   - change Example 7 and the Registrar registration for 'last' to match it
> 
> It would also be very useful to include a family-name-first (e.g. Chinese)
> name in at least one example to illustrate how that works, although
> unfortunately that breaks the convention of using examples from Shakespeare :-)

I'll add a Chinese example.

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkqS3/EACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzgRgCfcP7k8Nx66PaIN9NJi/of5ECi
bNMAniBZ9Zk16lyGgsAebEcpc4zV8JI0
=8J7O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Standards mailing list