Subject: Re: [rfc-i] summary of Removing postal information from RFCs

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 11:20:02 +0200

Am 14.07.2021 um 03:57 schrieb John R Levine:
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2021, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> It's not clear what John's proposed resolution is (if any).
>
> Here's what we came up with on Monday.  The current schema for <postal> is:
>
> ( ( city | cityarea | code | country | extaddr | pobox | region |
> sortingcode | street )*
>    | postalLine+ )
>
> We propose a small tweak:
>
> ( ( city | cityarea | code | country | extaddr | pobox | region |
> sortingcode | street )*
>    | postalLine+  country? )
>
> That is, we still allow the current syntax, in which we render just the
> country, getting rid of the problem of what order to render the rest.
>
> Or you can give a sequence of postallines with an optional country, in
> which we render the whole list in order.
>
> The point of adding the country after the postallines is so that scripts
> that are doing country statistics don't have to guess whether the last
> postalline is the country.
> ...

FWIW, this is now implemented in rfc2629.xslt (with the conversion tool
currently converting <country> to <postalLine> until xml2rfc is updated
as well).

I plan to remove the country-based formatter that was introduced to
match xml2rfc's current behaviour soonish.

Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest