Commit 6d7270e
Amend the RFC to match what shipped in 2.0.0rc1
Two reconciliations before merging the RFC as the standing design
record. The design did not drift -- it grew after this doc froze on
2026-07-11 -- so nothing here contradicted the release; it was missing
a field and carried an illustrative string that never matched output.
- Add the `maiden` field (#274), decided after the RFC was written: a
birth surname introduced by a marker like née/geb. that v1 folded
into middle/last. It is the one user-facing 2.0 field the document
omitted.
- Fix the ambiguity example's detail text to the actual shipped string
("leading 'Van' may be a family-name particle; read as a given
name"). Detail text is not stable API, but an example that does not
reproduce is a wart in a standing record.
Verified every other code example in the RFC runs verbatim against
2.0.0rc1 -- replace(), the Token repr, the FAMILY_FIRST example, the RU
locale, and the "not in 2.0" claim for parse_all()/explain().
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>1 parent 98a19d2 commit 6d7270e
1 file changed
Lines changed: 4 additions & 2 deletions
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
131 | 131 | | |
132 | 132 | | |
133 | 133 | | |
| 134 | + | |
| 135 | + | |
134 | 136 | | |
135 | 137 | | |
136 | 138 | | |
| |||
176 | 178 | | |
177 | 179 | | |
178 | 180 | | |
179 | | - | |
180 | | - | |
| 181 | + | |
| 182 | + | |
181 | 183 | | |
182 | 184 | | |
183 | 185 | | |
| |||
0 commit comments