Hi David(s) ! =>=To what end? Is the purpose of the database registration information =>=lookup or a more general white pages service? I' would suggest the =>=former and leave the latter to the WHOIS++/LDAP/X.500 crowd. What's the *inherent technology* difference between a registration lookup and a general white pages service? Sure, ultimately the number of entries... As soon as we have a production environment with these tools (both from technology, software, coverage, logistics and web access) I'll be happy to move ;-) ==> ==> - local langauge problems (European National Character Sets) which make ==> it difficult to find out about a (arbitrarily chosen) transcription. = =Local language problems? Heh. Let me introduce you to traditional =Chinese with all 100,000+ characters :-). Thank you. For the time being I just (have to) appreciate them as a piece of art. Unfortunately I lack the time to dive into that to the degree I would like to master. But if there is any special consideration of transcribing these letters (well, more local language independent symbols?) into 7bit ASCII for a DB I'd be happy to be clued in. What I was primarily referring to is the 7bit transcription of European local languages for "funny" characters. While I don't know about other countries, e.g. I'm perfectly aware that even *within the German region*, there is differences in defined transcriptions: AT (and DE?) a "sharp s" is formally written as "sz" but usually we use the "ss" form in everyday transactions. CH the same is written as "ss" For Scandinavia there is a couple of different umlauts with double dots, crossing an "o" or ligatures, etc. Do you reaaly know about the transcription? => The advantage of the whois =>database serving as a simple registered object lookup mechanism is =>that you don't have to worry (too much) about gunk like local language =>support -- the registration database access method (whois) allows =>lookups on registry objects, namely inetnums, handles, domains, route =>objects, etc. of which people (generally :-)) are not a part. Then I don't understand why we have the recursive lookup for person objects... =Yes, I'm arguing person: field contents should not be indexed, but =I've been known as a radical in the past. Note this would have =solved the problem that brought this issue up (I think). Well, reality differs. Those of us who have to work with end-users have to process a lot of requests that involve dealing with person objects. Whether they are directly indexed or just referenced doesn't make a big difference. I want to find out whether some guy or gal is already in the DB - full stop. And it's more comfortable to do that with a wildcard replacing a "sharp s" or an umlau than being "radical" and try all the different possibilities that I can imageine. => - comments from other environments, where the lack of this feature was => quoted as a major obstacle to use this software 'cause this => functionality is provided right now. = =If all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. =This doesn't mean you should attach a blender to your hammer to allow =making more consistent puree... Thank you :-) I just wonder why you need a blender when you've got a hammer? Just kidding :-) Wilfried. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Vienna University : Tel: +43 1 4065822 355 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4065822 170 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : NIC: WW144 --------------------------------------------------------------------------