- From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:07:32 +0000
- To: Alec Berntson <alecb@windows.microsoft.com>
- Cc: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>, public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Alec Berntson <alecb@windows.microsoft.com> wrote: > I think each field needs to be freeform - e.g. Postal codes in the UK are alphanumerical as one example. > I agree, post code needs to be free form. > Also, there might be more subtly to the order of the fields than first meets the eye - in Japan the order of address fields (in terms of accuracy) is different than in the US. > For UK addresses, the post code would have to be after street number to match the rule that Doug mentioned (and which applies to the rest of the attributes). That's one reason why I thought it should be last. The other reason is that it matches the position of post code in RFC 4119, as Allan mentioned. Thanks, Andrei
Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2009 16:08:11 UTC