On Tue, 30 Jul 2013, Lara Rennie wrote:
If they want a separate field, they can trivially just extract out the
CEDEX bit by looking for the word CEDEX in the locality, and stripping
it out if it's present. I would expect most implementations not to
bother (since there doesn't seem to
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Lara Rennie wrote:
Re the CEDEX: it is a postal-code like thing, but it can't go in the
postal-code field, or formatting would be bizarre; as pointed out, it
should go after the locality field. However, if it was entered in the
locality field, certain systems may
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Lara Rennie lararen...@google.com wrote:
2013/7/2 Albert Bodenhamer abode...@chromium.org
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:04 AM, Lara Rennie lararen...@google.comwrote:
Sorry about the slow response, I was out on holiday.
Re the CEDEX: it is a postal-code like
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:04 AM, Lara Rennie lararen...@google.com wrote:
Sorry about the slow response, I was out on holiday.
Re the CEDEX: it is a postal-code like thing, but it can't go in the
postal-code field, or formatting would be bizarre; as pointed out, it
should go after the
On 11/06/13 23:46, Albert Bodenhamer wrote:
Address CEDEX codes:
Problem: They don't fit well into the postal-code field and are often
handled as a separate entity.
Proposal: Add a field name for CEDEX code.
As far as I can tell, CEDEX is never explicitly asked in French web
forms. Likely
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:31:42 +0200, Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.fr
wrote:
On 11/06/13 23:46, Albert Bodenhamer wrote:
Address CEDEX codes:
Problem: They don't fit well into the postal-code field and are often
handled as a separate entity.
Proposal: Add a field name for CEDEX code.
As far
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile
cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:31:42 +0200, Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.fr
wrote:
On 11/06/13 23:46, Albert Bodenhamer wrote:
Address CEDEX codes:
Problem: They don't fit well into the postal-code field and
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013, Albert Bodenhamer wrote:
I'm a bit concerned about the inconsistency of it. I don't think we
need a separate field for it, but it would be nice to be explicit about
how it'll be handled if the browser is aware of it.
I updated the spec to be explicit about this. Let
I was working on bug 22286, and noticed that this e-mail was relevant:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013, Albert Bodenhamer wrote:
Address lines:
Currently: Recommended handling for addresses is currently as a single
line. Alternatively, sites can ask for address lines 1-3 but this is
discouraged.
Thanks Ian. Comments below.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
I was working on bug 22286, and noticed that this e-mail was relevant:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013, Albert Bodenhamer wrote:
Address lines:
Currently: Recommended handling for addresses is currently
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Albert Bodenhamer wrote:
Problem: It might be desirable to be able to specify that a physical
address (an actual location) is expected rather than a mailing
address (eg a PO box).
The intent is that if the site needs a physical address it can specify
that in
Lara Rennie (CCed) and I have been looking over the autocomplete
attributehttp://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/association-of-controls-and-forms.html#attr-fe-autocompleteover
the past week with an eye towards better i18n. We'd like to propose a
few changes.
Some are
12 matches
Mail list logo
