[rfc-i] Remove some requirements on element order

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail.com
Mon Jan 6 09:29:29 PST 2014


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de>wrote:

> On 2014-01-06 16:32, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
>> On Jan 5, 2014, at 8:31 PM, Martin J. Dürst <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  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.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> There is no real value to having any structure to the postal addresses in
>> RFCs, is there?
>>
>
> Well, we could run statistics on the postal addresses of authors :-)
>

No, not really because the current DTD requires the address elements to be
presented in a completely arbitrary but very specific order rather than
allowing them to be presented in any order and the order chosen being
significant.



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20140106/b4608f75/attachment.htm>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list