Hi Andy,
Am 25.09.23 um 16:04 schrieb Andrew Newton:
I disagree
with wrapping name and role in the postal information as those
elements are used for non postal reasons and there are definitely
non-EPP registries that do not model this the same way.
[PK] Makes sense to me to be able to have
On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 6:46 AM Mario Loffredo
wrote:
>
> [ML] Why doesn't the postal address include a property representing the city
> ? The country code and the city are required information in RFC5733 while the
> postal code is optional.
This is a good point. It was dropped in an exercise
Hi Pawel,
This is a very interesting idea. Even in non-EPP registries, it is
unlikely that more than one representation of a name, etc.. will be
collected. Therefore, this reduction makes sense to me. I disagree
with wrapping name and role in the postal information as those
elements are used for
Hi,
Il 20/09/2023 18:34, Pawel Kowalik ha scritto:
Hi Andrew,
The new draft goes in the right direction, but for me there are still
few elements, that seem to be too complex for the purpose.
For all fields there is an assumed plurality with lists of values,
where theoretically the only
Hi Andrew,
The new draft goes in the right direction, but for me there are still
few elements, that seem to be too complex for the purpose.
For all fields there is an assumed plurality with lists of values, where
theoretically the only differentiator should be the localization,
however
Hi all,
We have posted an update to Simple Contact. Here are the summary of the changes:
* removed structured names
* removed structured addresses
* fixed ISO-3166-2 usage
* removed the "masked" property
* updated the example
* added a section on linking to vcard / jcard / jscontact
Overall,
