W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2013

Re: [whatwg] Proposal:Improve internationalization in the autocomplete attribute

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 20:26:39 +0000 (UTC)
To: Lara Rennie <lararennie@google.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1307301828530.27623@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
Cc: Albert Bodenhamer <abodenha@chromium.org>, whatwg@whatwg.org
On Tue, 30 Jul 2013, Lara Rennie wrote:
> >
> > If they want a separate field, they can trivially just extract out the 
> > CEDEX bit by looking for the word CEDEX in the locality, and stripping 
> > it out if it's present. I would expect most implementations not to 
> > bother (since there doesn't seem to be any reason to -- just pretend 
> > the locality has "CEDEX" in the name, and it all works, no?).
> 
> When you said you expect most implementations not to bother; this is not 
> my experience at all. Any implementation that wants to find the address 
> on the map would have to strip it out, and anyone who wants to do 
> statistical analysis.

Most implementations I've seen don't even offer the field. For example, 
I went to Amazon UK and tried to ship to a French address, and there was 
no mention of CEDEX anywhere.


> CEDEX is usually followed by a number - as per Address Doctor "A CEDEX 
> address is built of 5 characters followed by the locality name and the 
> word CEDEX. This code can be followed by another identification number 
> if there are more than one distribution points in one locality. If there 
> is more than one arrondissement in one locality, the CEDEX code is 
> followed by the one of the arrondissement."

That just seems to make it even more part of the locality, to me. That is, 
the locality is either "Paris" or "Paris CEDEX 04" or whatnot.


> Here's a random doc showing a CEDEX address:
> 
> http://www.claudereichman.com/articles/Document%20CNAV0001.pdf
> 
> The text-field is supposed to be filled in with the appropriate number. 
> I agree this is not so intuitive for people who just want to say CEDEX 
> without a number; maybe it should be a tick-box, and then once you've 
> ticked it, you can optionally enter a number.

I'm still thinking that this is rare enough that we shouldn't support it 
with its own dedicated field. In particular, since it's so rare that most 
people don't implement it, we'd have to come up with a way to split up the 
information when only one field was available, anyway. This just seems 
like a world of pain.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2013 20:27:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:03 UTC