[rfc-i] summary of Removing postal information from RFCs

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sun Jul 11 23:53:04 PDT 2021


Am 11.07.2021 um 23:34 schrieb John R Levine:
> Here's a somewhat tardy summary of the postal element discussion.
>
> It's still not clear to me what people think the purpose of the optional
> postal address is.
>
> R's,
> John
>
> I said:
>   One of the changes to the xml v3 grammar since RFC 7991 is a new
>>> <postal> element with a set of subfields such as <street>, <region>, and
>>> <code>. To render addresses we use a python library that depends on an
>>> open source address database originally from Google.  While tracking
>>> down a rendering bug, we found that the rendering database is not
>>> actively maintained and has a long list of unresolved pull requests.  We
>>> don't know of any other reliable source of rendering patterns.
>
> Julian
>> That is misleading. Most of these elements date back to RFC 2629. RFC
>> 7991 has added <postalLine> which allows authors to format their
>> information the way to want it, instead of having to live with the baked
>> in address formatter.
>
> (True but it's switched from just enumerating the items to using
> patterns from
> the datatbase, with extra fields.)
> ...

Not true. What I said is about the definition of the vocabulary. You are
talking about an implementation choice that the author of the *tool* made.

Best regards, Julian




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list