[rfc-i] draft-iab-html-rfc-03, "9.2 <address>"

jhildebr at cisco.com (Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)) Tue, 05 July 2016 20:00 UTC

From: jhildebr at cisco.com (Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr))
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 20:00:57 +0000
Subject: [rfc-i] draft-iab-html-rfc-03, "9.2 <address>"
In-Reply-To: <b26d0177-6041-6337-b78b-61023b4d2706@gmx.de>
References: <b26d0177-6041-6337-b78b-61023b4d2706@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <9A7978E4-8FEB-4834-9A26-FC4FED311B7E@cisco.com>

> On Jul 1, 2016, at 4:32 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> <https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-iab-html-rfc-03.html#rfc.section.9.2>:
> 
> "This element is used in Authors' Addresses. It is rendered as an HTML <address> tag of class "vcard". If none of the descendant XML elements has an "ascii" attribute, the <address> HTML tag includes the HTML rendering of each of the descendant XML elements. Otherwise, the <address> HTML tag includes an HTML <div> tag of class "ascii" (containing the HTML rendering of the ASCII variants of each of the descendant XML elements), an HTML <div> tag of class "alternative-contact", (containing the text "Alternate contact information:"), and an HTML <div> tag of class "non-ascii" (containing the HTML rendering of the non-ASCII variants of each of the descendant XML elements)."
> 
> That's a bit weird.
> 
> a) It sounds like the ASCII variant would only contain those parts that actually have an ASCII variant. That's not the intent, right?
> 
> b) Shouldn't the *ASCII* variant be the "alternate"?

I'm fine with that.  Hold for document update; this shouldn't delay getting started on tooling, and has a minimal impact if we change it.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand