Two long-standing xfails share one signal: letters separated by periods smell like initials. E.T. Smith gives given="E.T." but given="E.", middle="T." could be a nice optional correction. U.S. District Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell fails to read U.S. as a title in a chained title, but it could.
The hazard is that the same shape is credential vocabulary — SUFFIX_ACRONYMS contains a specific list like M.D., Ph.D. — so a bare "dotted single letters = initials" rule collides with John Smith M.D. and the S-rules' acronym handling. But potentially anything at the end of a name that smells like initials could be a suffix candidate beyond what we have recorded in the constants.
The question: is there a version of the signal that we could use in to inform decisions about first/middle initial split correction, potential title or suffix acronym?
Two long-standing xfails share one signal: letters separated by periods smell like initials.
E.T. Smithgivesgiven="E.T."butgiven="E.",middle="T."could be a nice optional correction.U.S. District Judge Marc Thomas Treadwellfails to readU.S.as a title in a chained title, but it could.The hazard is that the same shape is credential vocabulary — SUFFIX_ACRONYMS contains a specific list like
M.D.,Ph.D.— so a bare "dotted single letters = initials" rule collides withJohn Smith M.D.and the S-rules' acronym handling. But potentially anything at the end of a name that smells like initials could be a suffix candidate beyond what we have recorded in the constants.The question: is there a version of the signal that we could use in to inform decisions about first/middle initial split correction, potential title or suffix acronym?