I am with Markus!
Dima
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:00 AM, "Markus Döring (GBIF)" mdoering@gbif.orgwrote:
Although useful to some degree there should be NO formatting tags inside any of the name terms. Formatting can currently only be done via the atomised bits or parsing.
Markus
On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:37, Jonathan Giddy wrote:
On 19/11/10 11:15, John van Breda wrote:
I'm coming in a bit late on this conversation so I hope I am not
repeating
what has already been said, but botanical names can also have authorship
at
both specific and infraspecific levels, e.g. Centaurea apiculata Ledeb. ssp. adpressa (Ledeb.) Dostál
And to make it even more complex, you can have subspecies variants, so 2 infraspecific levels, e.g. Centaurea affinis Friv. ssp. affinis var. Affinis
Atomising this properly could be quite complex but necessary to be able
to
present the name as it should be written with italics in the correct
place.
E.g. in the example above, the author string and rank strings are not normally italiced, but the rest of the name is. Unless we can include
this
formatting information in dwc:scientificName?
-----Original Message----- From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of "Markus
Döring
(GBIF)"
Is there really anything we are missing?
I'd like to back this "requirement" up. It would be useful to record which name parts should be emphasised (italicized), so that a human editor or smart software can apply the appropriate Code, and less-smart software such as browser Javascript can display the name correctly formatted.
Jon.
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content