To:
"'Robert Burbidge'" <robert.burbidge@poptel.coop>, "Ietf-Provreg (E-mail)" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date:
Mon, 22 Apr 2002 09:33:41 -0400
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: <postalInfo> element in contact management
> -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Burbidge [mailto:robert.burbidge@poptel.coop] > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 5:39 AM > To: Ietf-Provreg (E-mail) > Subject: <postalInfo> element in contact management > > > Source :draft-ietf-provreg-epp-contact-04.txt > > Quote from the <contact:info> command page 11 > ... > One or two <contact:postalInfo> elements that contain postal address > information. Two elements are provided so that address information > can be provided in both internationalized and localized > forms. If an > internationalized form is provided, it MUST be listed first and > element content MUST be represented in a subset of UTF-8 that can be > represented in the 7-bit US-ASCII character set. If a > localized form > is provided, element content MAY be represented in > unrestricted UTF-8. > ... > > If two <contact:postalInfo> elements are provided the above > paragraph makes > it clear which one is the internationalized form and which is > the localized > form. However, if only one <contact:postalInfo> element is > supplied, is it > understood to be internationalized or localized? That depends on the characters used. If characters outside the ASCII range are used, you have something that's localized. ASCII only -> internationalized. This might be more clear if we add an attribute to the <postalInfo> element; at least it would allow one to decide without having to examine all of the data directly. Disclaimer: again, we're still waiting for IESG feedback on the last call. I can't change anything easily at this point, though I will queue this idea for discussion with the IESG when they get back to us with comments. -Scott-