Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] ShippingAddress versus Address (#189)

@adamroach Hm, you're right that we're only loosely based on xNAL, but I don't feel that any existing standards serve our needs exactly. For example, in issue https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/issues/6 we've considered going with [IETF ECML](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4112). However, that standard has a few issues. For example:

- It breaks down the name into several constituent parts, which is not necessary for shipping addresses and makes address input forms more cumbersome.
- It has a limit of 3 lines for some reason. Even some US addresses can go over 3 street line addresses.
- It uses abbreviated name `stateProv`, which may be confusing to non-native language speakers.
- It does not include sub-locality (e.g. districts in China) and sorting code (France-related).

Given the sparseness of good address formats, I feel that we cannot follow any one standard to the letter. What we have now is a good intermediate solution. I am open to concrete suggestions.

---
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/issues/189#issuecomment-219604307