[rfc-i] Remove some requirements on element order

"Martin J. Dürst" duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Sun Jan 5 20:31:16 PST 2014

On 2014/01/03 2:54, Julian Reschke wrote:

> What I had on my mind is something like:
> <postal>
> ...
> <addressline><code>48155</code> <city>Münster</city></addressline>
> ...
> </postal>

Actually, that's overkill. The problem can be solved much simpler. Just 
have a postal address as a free-form element, with the newlines possibly 
being relevant for formatting.

Companies that use addresses to ship stuff want to do consistency 
checks, bundling of stuff that goes to the same address for discounts, 
and so on, and thus benefit from a detailed address structure.

But I have yet to see where that's helpful for draft/RFC authors. 
Sending every RFC author a nice Christmas present or Happy New Year card 
would be neat, but I doubt there's a company that's willing to sponsor 
such an idea :-). Simply put, we want a lot of metadata, but <code> or 
<city> are not among the metadata that we need.

And please note that although the order of elements in an address may 
vary, it is determined by the address itself, not by something external 
such as the location of the sender,...

So please let's keep things simple where we can.

> <addressline> would indicate that the contents is to be formatted as a
> single line, and that order and whitespace inside is significant.

In most locations, there are rather strong conventions on where to break 
a line in an address. But in some places, e.g. Japan, that's not the case.

Regards,   Martin.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list