W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-geolocation@w3.org > March 2009

Re: Geolication API level 2 - editor's draft

From: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:24:45 -0700
Message-ID: <49CAD95D.7000007@bbn.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:33:52 UTC