W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-contacts-coord@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: Fields in ADR

From: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 12:32:40 -0400
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>, Joseph Smarr <jsmarr@google.com>
cc: jsmarr@stanfordalumni.org, Joseph Smarr <jsmarr@gmail.com>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, public-contacts-coord@w3.org, vcarddav@ietf.org
Message-ID: <B5107AD955DEA8CB54C8ABE9@socrates.local>
Hi Simon,

--On September 9, 2010 10:27:12 AM -0400 Simon Perreault 
<simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> wrote:

>> Make sense? Any objections?
> Makes sense to me, although I'd prefer to just drop the fields entirely.
> The only potential objection I see would be "we're trying to follow
> X.520", but that seems pretty weak since ADR right now is some kind of
> blend of what they call "Geographical Attributes" and "Postal
> Addressing", and some X.520 fields are missing too.
> So I personally would have no objection in removing those two fields.
> If the working group agrees, I'll remove them.

This would generate a serious incompatibility with vcard 3. Better would be 
to add a statement that those fields are typically empty and can be ignored 
and should not be used.

Note that in the past I had proposed doing away with ADR and instead having 
a "civic address" field based on the geoprov civic address format. Those 
folks took a lot of time to consider all the various civic addressing 
formats and came up with a comprehensive specification (lots of fields). If 
the real intent is to have an address field that is machine parseable and 
expected to have various field reliably extracted then I think replacing 
ADR would be a better solution than messing with what is there now.

>> PS: Do you know if there's any way in vCard to say "this 'adr' and this
>> 'label' correspond to the same physical address?". Just saying "they
>> both have type=work" isn't really sufficient since you might work out of
>> multiple offices, say, or have a second vacation home.
> Very good observation! There is no such way. We need one.

Group prefix can be used for this.

>> In PoCo, we chose
>> to combine them by having a "formatted" value for the unstructured
>> address alongside the structured counterparts. This is very useful for
>> "round-tripping" complex addresses with programs like Outlook that let
>> you edit both the structured and unstructured versions of the same
>> address.
> How would the working-group feel about merging ADR and LABEL to solve
> this issue? LABEL would simply be an additional field in ADR, much like
> in PoCo.
> (How would these changes affect the last call status of the draft?)

Group prefix is sufficient. No need to change.

Cyrus Daboo
Received on Thursday, 9 September 2010 16:33:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:38:00 UTC