Meh. The .01% comment is perfectly relevant. Should the system be re-organized from the ground up and new licenses issued to everyone in the USA to accomodate last names of her length? I can't wait to carry around my postcard size license in my back pocket.
The system was written to work for the 99.9% of users it serves, the other 0.01% will unfortunately have to deal with the problem of being outliers.
Wrong. My argument is that there are constraints we have to deal with when programming. Those constraints make it difficult or impossible to investigate and satisfy every possible naming convention on the planet. If you happen to exclude some possible naming scheme or the one character set system you're working with won't tolerate much flexibility, that doesn't make you an offensive, rude human. And if you happen to make a judgement call and limit naming flexibility to a certain reasonable expectation, that also doesn't make you an offensive, rude human. We are under no ethical obligation to expend orders of magnitude more cost and effort to satisfy orders of magnitude fewer individuals. There's a limit. Flexibility isn't free.
Irrelevant.
>or even with the knowledge that it could be offensive.
Irrelevant to your argument, which is that we should continue doing it even after we figure out that it's offensive, because fuck them.