adr-poll: Difference between revisions
AndyMabbett (talk | contribs) (General comments) |
(Does this page even make sense to have? can we delete it - i hate these polls they waste time, confuse folks and are poorly named/designed) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
===Object=== | ===Object=== | ||
* [[User:Brian|Brian Suda]] | |||
==Wording== | ==Wording== | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
==General comments== | ==General comments== | ||
ADR is for structured information, if you do NOT have structured information then use the LABEL property. There is NO REASON to make any specical conditions for the ADR element. The spec and RFC are clear enough on these topics | |||
Revision as of 21:04, 10 April 2007
Change to adr spec
Further to discussion at hcard-brainstorming#ADR with no children, it is proposed to amend the adr spec, and the corresponding part of the hCard spec, thus:
Where the
adrhas content, but no valid sub-properties, parsers [MAY | SHOULD | MUST] output the content of thatadras a single vCard [output-field] field.
Please indicate you support or objections preferred wording and choice of output-field, below, using an asterisk and three tildes (* ~~~), followed by any comments. Please indicate your preferences, even if you object to the main proposal, so that they may still be considered if the proposal carries. You may change your votes at any time, until a community decision is made.
Main proposal
Support
Object
Wording
MAY
SHOULD
MUST
Output field
street-address
extended-address
region
locality
General comments
ADR is for structured information, if you do NOT have structured information then use the LABEL property. There is NO REASON to make any specical conditions for the ADR element. The spec and RFC are clear enough on these topics