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