# Another question, about the name-part elements

**URL:** <https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/another-question-about-the-name-part-elements/565>\
**Category:** CSL Development\
**Created:** [March 16, 2009, 12:12pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/another-question-about-the-name-part-elements/565 "2009-03-16T12:12:34Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Frank\_Bennett](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/frank_bennett/32/198_2.png) [@Frank\_Bennett](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Frank_Bennett)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 12:12pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/another-question-about-the-name-part-elements/565/1 "2009-03-16T12:12:34Z")

</div>

I have names importing to a manageable internal structure now. I’m  
thinking about output … and (of course!) I have another question.

If I recall correctly, the new approach to names elements will be  
something like:

There are maybe four possible “name-part” elements: family name, given  
name, articular (like “van”), and suffix (like “Jr.”).  
The sequence is fixed by some hinting mechanism that provides the  
possibility of overriding the Western order of  
names when generating the display form, and the possibility of setting  
a literal string for organization names and  
the like.

What I’m wondering is whether the name-part elements should be  
interpreted not as “insert here” or "insert this"  
operators, but as “when setting this part of the name, treat it like  
this” formatting hooks. In other words,  
even with a bare environment, you  
would get names as output, in  
whatever the default CSL format for names is.

Is that understanding correct? Or should elements not specifically  
included in the environment be omitted  
altogether (so that a style that omitted the articular element, say,  
would return Werner Braun instead of  
Werner von Braun)?

Frank

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 2:20pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/another-question-about-the-name-part-elements/565/2 "2009-03-16T14:20:05Z")

</div>

> I have names importing to a manageable internal structure now.

Can we put the tests in place before you go much farther, now that  
we’ve narrowed the problem? This another example where we could just  
write a test.

> I’m thinking about output … and (of course!) I have another question.
> 
> If I recall correctly, the new approach to names elements will be  
> something like:
> 
> There are maybe four possible “name-part” elements: family name, given  
> name, articular (like “van”), and suffix (like “Jr.”).  
> The sequence is fixed by some hinting mechanism that provides the  
> possibility of overriding the Western order of  
> names when generating the display form, and the possibility of setting  
> a literal string for organization names and  
> the like.
> 
> What I’m wondering is whether the name-part elements should be  
> interpreted not as “insert here” or “insert this”  
> operators, but as “when setting this part of the name, treat it like  
> this” formatting hooks. In other words,  
> even with a bare environment, you  
> would get names as output, in  
> whatever the default CSL format for names is.

I’m not following you on the last sentence.

> Is that understanding correct? Or should elements not specifically  
> included in the environment be omitted  
> altogether (so that a style that omitted the articular element, say,  
> would return Werner Braun instead of  
> Werner von Braun)?

Again; maybe I need coffee, but am not quite understanding what you’re asking.

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Frank\_Bennett](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/frank_bennett/32/198_2.png) [@Frank\_Bennett](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Frank_Bennett)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 9:57pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/another-question-about-the-name-part-elements/565/3 "2009-03-16T21:57:58Z")

</div>

> > I have names importing to a manageable internal structure now.
> 
> Can we put the tests in place before you go much farther, now that  
> we’ve narrowed the problem? This another example where we could just  
> write a test.
> 
> > I’m thinking about output … and (of course!) I have another question.
> > 
> > If I recall correctly, the new approach to names elements will be  
> > something like:
> > 
> > There are maybe four possible “name-part” elements: family name, given  
> > name, articular (like “van”), and suffix (like “Jr.”).  
> > The sequence is fixed by some hinting mechanism that provides the  
> > possibility of overriding the Western order of  
> > names when generating the display form, and the possibility of setting  
> > a literal string for organization names and  
> > the like.
> > 
> > What I’m wondering is whether the name-part elements should be  
> > interpreted not as “insert here” or “insert this”  
> > operators, but as “when setting this part of the name, treat it like  
> > this” formatting hooks. In other words,  
> > even with a bare environment, you  
> > would get names as output, in  
> > whatever the default CSL format for names is.
> 
> I’m not following you on the last sentence.
> 
> > Is that understanding correct? Or should elements not specifically  
> > included in the environment be omitted  
> > altogether (so that a style that omitted the articular element, say,  
> > would return Werner Braun instead of  
> > Werner von Braun)?
> 
> Again; maybe I need coffee, but am not quite understanding what you’re asking.

I’ll write a test. 🙂