W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > December 2003

Re: XHTML 2.0: Suggestion for <addr/> and <blockaddr/> to replace <address/>

From: Ernest Cline <ernestcline@mindspring.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 23:15:59 -0500
Message-ID: <410-22003126641559671@mindspring.com>
To: "Andy Holmes" <aholmes84@shaw.ca>, "Karl Dubost" <karl@w3.org>, www-html@w3.org




> [Original Message]
> From: Andy Holmes <aholmes84@shaw.ca>
> To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>; <www-html@w3.org>
>
> Karl Dubost wrote:
> > You could achieve the same presentation and the same meaning with:
> > 
> > Example 1 (not valid now)
> > ==========
> > <p>If you need more information write to: <address>Acme Inc. 42, Main 
> > Street, Douglas City</address>.</p>
> > ==========
> > in CSS,    p address {display: block;}
> > 
> > AND
> > 
> > Example 2
> > ==========
> > <p>If you need more information write to:</p>
> > <address>Acme Inc. 42, Main Street, Douglas City</address>
> > ==========
> > 
> > 
>
> I think I'd have to disagree with this. In my view <address>/<addr> does 
> not apply just to street addresses and so it has different structural 
> meaning for different types of addresses.
>
> Consider:
>
> <p>
> You can get in touch with me via my e-mail address, <addr 
> href="mailto:aholmes84@shaw.ca">aholmes84@shaw.ca</addr>
> </p>
>
> Versus:
>
> <p>
> Or send me snail-mail at the address:
> </p>
>
> <blockaddr>
> Andy Holmes<br/>
> 123 Nowhere St.<br/>
> New York, NY 66666<br/>
> </blockaddr>
>
> These quite obviously differ in more than presentation, although you are 
> right that it could be easy to be confused about the difference between 
> presentation and structure in some cases. I hope I've made it a little 
> clearer how I believe these two differ structurally...

As I've said before, I think what is really needed is a URI for postal
addresses.  I have sent a suggestion along those lines to the UPU
(Universal Postal Union) and have received a brief note saying
that they would give me a fuller response sometime Tuesday.

Assuming they go forward and develop a postal URI, then the
fact that an element refers to an email address, a telephone
number, or a postal address could be inferred from the
presence of a URI of the appropriate protocol in the href
attribute with no need for an XHTML element to indicate
a single point of contact.  Thus an inline address element
would be totally unneeded.

Of course, without a postal URI, then there probably is a need
for an inline address element. As there would then be no way
to identify all singular pieces of contact info.

Either way tho, keeping a block level element in the standard is
probably a good idea, altho if the intent is to generalize it, it should
probably be given a different name than <address>.
Received on Friday, 5 December 2003 23:16:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:59 GMT