[rfc-i] Changes to the v3 <postal> element

Larry Masinter masinter at gmail.com
Fri Jun 11 00:53:40 PDT 2021


I think it’s important to keep and encourage authors to supply as part of identity metadata. 

((Sent from phone))

--
LarryMasinter.net

> On Jun 10, 2021, at 8:13 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> Am 11.06.2021 um 01:54 schrieb John R Levine:
>> 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
> 
> 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.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> +1, that's indeed a problem.
> 
>> But we don't see a strong reason for readers to need the full postal
>> address
>> for RFC authors. Anecdotally, on rare occasions readers have used the
>> postal
>> address but (a) the email address is primary since <postal/> is optional
>> and
> 
> Strictly speaking, <email> is optional as well. We may want to require it.
> 
>> ...
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list