- From: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:33:50 -0700
- To: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
- Cc: Alec Berntson <alecb@windows.microsoft.com>, public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>
On Mar 25, 2009, at 9:07 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote: > 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. Okay, wfm as-is. Regards, Doug Turner
Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2009 16:34:41 UTC