adr-poll

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 adr has content, but no valid sub-properties, parsers [MAY | SHOULD | MUST] output the content of that adr as 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

• Andy Mabbett

Object

• Brian Suda

Wording

MUST

• Andy Mabbett

Output field

extended-address

• Andy Mabbett

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

Label is not a sub-property of adr; it is therefore not suitable for addresses with no fn. Th reasons for this proposal are as outlined on the issues page cited. Andy Mabbett 14:13, 10 Apr 2007 (PDT)