🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <726764891snz@mwassocs.demon.co.uk>, whyman@mwassocs.demon.co.uk 
(Tony Whyman) writes:

[...]
>The clause is not as precisely written as it could be. The text reads:
>
>"The value of a personal-name comprises the following four pieces of
>information, the first mandatory, the others optional:
>
>a) The person's surname
>
>b) The person's given name
>
>c) The initials of all his names, but his surname.
>
>d) His generation (e.g. "Jr")."
>
>As it stands, it an undeniably sexist and WASP view of the world, and probably
>ought to be challenged. However, the statement is clear as it stands. It is 
>the INITIALS parameter that is optional, but if present, the requirement is
>clear - all the initials except the last.

Sorry, you lost me. How can the statement "the first [piece] mandatory,
the others optional" justify the conclusion "It is the INITIALS parameter
that is optional" ? (That is, with emphasis on "initials")

Are you saying that "The person's given name" and "His generation 
(e.g. "Jr")" is any less optional than the initials information?

To me it is 100% clear that the surname is mandatory, the given name
optional, the initials optional, the generation optional. Am I wrong?

K.Albertsen