Re: [whatwg] Various autocomplete="" topics

Dunno if you still wanted answers to these questions, but in order to not
leave you hanging here are my best attempts:


>
>
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2014, Evan Stade wrote:
> >
> > "dependent-locality" and "locality" have a fairly precise meaning in the
> > UK. Also in a natural-language conversation, if you ask me what "region"
> > of the country I live in, I'd say "New England", "the Midwest", or some
> > such; certainly not the state where I reside. The descriptions for these
> > tokens are currently pretty specific, for example they say a city would
> > be a locality. But this is not true for Beijing or some other cities. To
> > fix the descriptions, we'd have to change them to something like
> > "region: the highest level administrative region below country in the
> > address" and "locality: the second-highest level administrative region
> > below country in the address", "sub-locality: the third-highest level
> > administrative region [...]".
>
> With you so far.
>
>
> > At this point, one wonders why the tokens aren't just [something]1,
> > [something]2, etc.
>
> I don't understand how you get there. Why would you wonder this?
>

Because if the long, more descriptive copy is "first highest," "second
highest," etc., it follows that the concise description (i.e. the type
name) match that.


>
>
> > > > > > > > >    "address-line1" |
> > > > > > > > >    "address-line2" |- "street-address"
> > > > > > > > >    "address-line3" |
> > > > > > > > >    "locality"
> > > > > > > > >    "subsubregion"
> > > > > > > > >    "subregion"
> > > > > > > > >    "region"
> > > > > > > > >    "country-name"
> > >
> > > I don't understand why you think authors will think they need to
> > > include "subregion", but won't think they need to include
> > > "address-level3".
> >
> > I think they'll assume subregion returns something for the US if it's
> > sandwiched between "region" and "locality", because county is in between
> > state and city. But in reality, subregion will return nothing.
>
> But why does this not apply to the numeric version?
>

Because address-level1 is state and address-level2 is city, so there's no
implication of something in between them.


>
> > > > Why is that better than 1=region, 2=locality, except to a US-centric
> > > > viewpoint? This would lead to a weird situation where (a) you
> > > > couldn't expand past 4 levels without changing the meaning of
> > > > previous levels and (b) a country such as the US would have
> > > > address-level4 and address-level3 but no address-level2 or
> > > > address-level1.
> > >
> > > Well, at least as far as (a) goes, we have no way to know where
> > > governments are going to introduce new levels. Who's to say that the
> > > US won't introduce something between states and towns? This problem
> > > exists whatever we do. Maybe the US and the EU will merge and there'll
> > > be a new field between "country-name" and "region". Who knows.
> >
> > One can dream...
> >
> > You're right that changing political circumstances might put us in an
> > awkward situation no matter what we do. But it seems to me the most
> > likely scenario is that a government would add more administrative
> > levels at the most granular level.
>
> Why? It seems just as likely that we'll add levels between "country" and
> "region". For instance, the example above.

Or, in a few years, when there
> are parts of countries in space, maybe there'll be a planetoid name
> between the country and the region. Or maybe that will go on the other
> side of the country.


> I think trying to guess how things will be extended is a fool's errand.
>
> If we use numbers, we paint ourselves into a corner with extensions
> anywhere but at the deepest level.
>

Well what do we do with words? Add "subsubsubregion" or
"moderately-big-area" in between two existing words?

If a country experiences political turmoil and changes the number of types
of administrative divisions it has, I guess it's reasonable to redefine
"level4" to the former "level3", and add a new "level5" which is the former
"level4".


>
> I've filed a bug on this topic; if I can get agreement from other vendors,
> then I'll go ahead and spec this:
>
>    https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25235


great!

Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2014 01:25:49 UTC