W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > March to April 2001

Re: Proposal for an "address:" URI Scheme

From: Douglas Bagnall <douglas@paradise.net.nz>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 15:56:31 +1200
To: <uri@w3.org>, <www-talk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3AB4DAAF.32582.5FE227@localhost>


Why not just "postal:"?

In this part of the world "address" is a synonym of URI, as in "ftp 
address", "email address", "web address". Thus the "address" part of 
"postal-address" is redundant, since it is implicitly already there 
(You might as well use "postal-URI:"). 


Also, postal codes ("zip" in US English) are not widely used on private 
letters here, and many people (like me) wouldn't know the codes for 
themselves or their addressees. So don't go requiring them.


Douglas Bagnall



Sean B. Palmer wrote:

>      "postal-address:" is a bit long
>      - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2001Mar/0022.html
> 
> That does make it one of the larger schemes... but the main problem is
> that the "-" rules out IETF-ization, as per RFC 2717:-
[...] 
> Which would currently be my main objection, although this need not be
> an IETF standardized scheme.
Received on Saturday, 17 March 2001 22:55:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:25 GMT