I want to report a bug
As I can show in the uploaded screenshot, if I write the name "Sibil·la" the user interfase indicates that there is an invalid character and I should change it. The problem is that in Catalan language is a valid symbol.
It is used in few names, but in some: Camil·la, Gal·la, Apel·les, Sibil·la, Apol·lo, Apol·linar, Aquil·les, Marcel·la, Priscil·la, etc…
There is people that after the "!" is changing the "l·l" for a "l.l" but that would be a typo and I understand that this functionality was created to avoid typos, no to create them.
Answers
-
Perhaps the "bug" is that many people don't understand diacritics - even those of us who do may not have ever seen this one before — thanks for pointing it out — I enjoy learning!
0 -
@Bosch Although I agree that the Middle Dot character (U+00B7) should be treated as a valid character, that is something that only FamilySearch engineers can fix.
In the meantime, one possible workaround is to use Latin Small Letter L with Middle Dot (U+0140) in place of the lowercase L followed by the Middle Dot. Then instead of Camil·la you would use Camiŀla. Since there is then no Middle Dot, but only letters of some kind, FamilySearch no longer complains about an invalid character.
From what I've read, most people say this is not the preferred representation, but is an acceptable alternative. I don't pretend to be an expert — I'm just trying to suggest a possible workaround you might find helpful.
1 -
@Bosch This would be an excellent submission to the Suggest an Idea category. It really isn't a bug, because the system is doing what it was programmed to do. But if you add links or documentation for the engineers through the Suggest an Idea form, it will help them when they do another update to that particular part of the website.
1 -
It's not a programming error, but it is definitely a design fault (failure to support a unicode character that is used regularly by a specific language that pops up often in European genealogy), which I would have thought needed fixing just as badly.
1 -
@MandyShaw1 said in response to @AnneLoForteWillson :
It's not a programming error, but it is definitely a design fault …
Agreed. Basically, given the use of the character (which, yes, I'd never seen either, so I'm in no position to criticise its omission!), it's either a programming bug or it's a design / program specification bug. Either way, as Mandy says, it needs fixing with the same urgency.
0
