[rfc-i] Removing postal information from RFCs [was: Changes to the v3 <postal> element]
mnot at mnot.net
Thu Jun 10 19:57:42 PDT 2021
> On 11 Jun 2021, at 12:53 pm, John R Levine <johnl at taugh.com> wrote:
>> What's the hassle?
> If you'll refer back to my original message, the code that tries to turn the subfields of <postal> into a formatted address depend on an abandonware database.
As I pointed out previously, this argument does not apply to <postalLine>.
> I suppose we could go back and reissue all of the existing XML RFCs that have postal addresses with <postalline> rather than what's there now, but I don't think we are anywhere near consensus on revising published XML.
I think that's an orthogonal decision.
>> Have you tried to gather evidence?
> About what? If there is evidence that the postal addresses are useful, I'd be happy to hear about it. All we've seen is along the lines of well, someone might use it for X, but in practice they don't.
You claimed that lack of evidence was justification for this change. I was asking if that was informed lack of evidence, or just lack of asking.
Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
More information about the rfc-interest