- From: Evan Stade <estade@chromium.org>
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 18:54:02 -0800
- To: Qebui Nehebkau <qebui.nehebkau+whatwg@gmail.com>
- Cc: WHAT Working Group Mailing List <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Qebui Nehebkau < qebui.nehebkau+whatwg@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > I think the arguments you've presented so far suggest "address-levelN" > for > > N=1..4, with 4=region and 3=locality, is probably the simplest thing to > > do. I was hoping there might be other people with opinions, to give us > > different perspectives on this, but it seems nobody else cares. :-( > > Since you asked, I think the whole endeavour (of trying to tokenise an > address) is pointless and should be abandoned outright. :) > > Short of my ideal of *only* offering the full address (as used on a > label) as an opaque string, The majority of forms ask for tokenized data; my impression is this is necessary given their backends (be it columns in a user info database, a payment provider that requires tokenized address, etc.) So I don't think it's practical to impose address blob only on the web.
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2014 02:54:26 UTC