Re: [whatwg] Various autocomplete="" topics

Regarding transaction-amount and transaction-currency: is there consensus
that they are useful types? Should the discussion move to a bug? They are
mentioned here[1] but they aren't the main topic of that bug.

[1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25471


-- Evan Stade


On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Evan Stade <estade@chromium.org> wrote:

> 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 Saturday, 10 May 2014 00:42:42 UTC