adr-poll

(Difference between revisions)

Jump to: navigation, search
(General comments)
(General comments)
Line 40: Line 40:
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
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
:<code>Label</code> is not a sub-property of <code>adr</code>; it is therefore not suitable for addresses with no <code>fn</code>. Th reasons for this proposal are as outlined on the issues page cited. [[User:AndyMabbett|Andy Mabbett]] 14:13, 10 Apr 2007 (PDT)
:<code>Label</code> is not a sub-property of <code>adr</code>; it is therefore not suitable for addresses with no <code>fn</code>. Th reasons for this proposal are as outlined on the issues page cited. [[User:AndyMabbett|Andy Mabbett]] 14:13, 10 Apr 2007 (PDT)
 +
* this makes no sense? ofcourse LABEL is not a sub-property of ADR, it is ANOTHER property entirerly designed SPECIFICALLY for address information with no structure! The use of LABEL has been added to the issues-page already and attiquitely addresses this issue - if your CMS can NOT add the fine grained support for different ADR sub-properties then it should be class="label" instead of class="adr". As for FN i don't understand what you are attempted to describe. ADR and FN are seperate. An ADR does NOT need an FN and an FN does NOT need an ADR? neither are sub-properties of each other? therefore it is completely acceptable to have an FN and a LABEL and an ADR and/or any combination of them. [[User:Brian|Brian Suda]] 21:18, 10 Apr 2007 (GMT)

Revision as of 21:19, 10 April 2007

Contents

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

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

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)
adr-poll was last modified: Wednesday, December 31st, 1969

Views