- From: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:24:45 -0700
- To: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>
- CC: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, Alec Berntson <alecb@windows.microsoft.com>, public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Huh? The order of fields in the API has absolutely nothing to do with how the address looks -- that's the toString() method, right? I certainly agree that the fields are "free form" in the sense of being type DOMString. --Richard Doug Turner wrote: > > 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 Thursday, 26 March 2009 01:25:35 UTC