[rfc-i] issue: canonical formats

Iljitsch van Beijnum iljitsch at muada.com
Sun Jun 3 13:20:03 PDT 2012


On 3 Jun 2012, at 14:50 , John R Levine wrote:

>> Why not include the author's latitude and longitude rather than trying to attach meaning to postal codes?

> Unless you're planning to target drone attacks on authors with whom you disagree, I'm having trouble figuring out what the point of this would be.

I'm somewhat perplexed about these reactions. The original comment was about tagging a postal code as a postal code. There is really only one reason to do that: to map from a postal code to a somewhat exact geographical location. If you want to do that, for instance for the purpose of creating statistics about RFC/draft author's locations, then it seems easier to include coordinates and get rid of a layer of indirection.

If on the other hand you only want the postal code there as part of an address so it's possible to send postal mail to RFC authors (a quaint notion!), then tagging the postal code as a postal code is a waste of tagging effort, because I assert that nobody (for all practical purposes) knows where in the address the postal code goes for all countries where RFC authors reside. As such, taking the postal address as a whole under the assumption that all the fields are already in the right order is a much more useful approach. In this case, there is no utility in having the different parts of the address tagged.

To make a long story short: let's not tag things just because we can.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list