Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Request to remove 'careOf' field from the PaymentAddress interface (#244)

Thanks for your responses, @adamroach and @dlongley!

I think the above comparison of postal address schemas / APIs has shown that **the consensus in the industry is that there is no need for a careOf field**. This strongly supports a different reading / conclusion than the interpretation that there must be a careOf field.

- Not a single of these schemas / APIs has a careOf field.
- **Even USPS'  own "International Label APIs" don’t have a careOf field** but do have fields for name & firm. (see reference in first post)
   - E.g. your referenced USPS doc (http://pe.usps.com/Archive/HTML/DMMArchive20030810/D041.htm) is part of the “Domestic Mail Manual” and this section is about “D041 Customer Mail Receptacles - 2.0 Curbside Mailboxes - 2.8 More Than One Family”.
   - It makes a point about "care of" in address labels for the USA. It doesn't make a point about address APIs / schemas.
   - (There are many other countries and even the USPS has many other guidelines / manuals.)

**Why try to innovate in address schemas here** by adding a the careOf field?

- I believe the goal to be to follow existing standards / best practices as much as possible to work with existing address schemas / APIs (shipping, payment gateways / APIs).
- Not a single other established schema or API has such a careOf field.
- I don’t see sufficient evidence to diverge from the industry’s best practice in such a significant way.

-- 
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/244#issuecomment-246587570