Re: [xml2rfc] [Rfc-markdown] New xml2rfc release: v2.12.1

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,

On 2018-10-30 08:24, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> On 2018/10/30 15:29, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> 
>> The current html specification would instead have produced, depending on
>> how you work around its problems, one of
>> 
>>    Midtskogveien 18
>>    Skedsmokorset
>>    2020
>>    Norway
>> 
>> or
>> 
>>    Midtskogveien 18
>>    Skedsmokorset, 2020
>>    Norway
>> 
>> which is a slighter degree of mangling than for places like various areas
>> of Japan, that needs city-region.  Here is a Japanese example.  This is
>> correct (except that it's also a translation, not just a romanization):
> 
> It is (mostly) correct for the original, which would be something like:
> 
> 日本
> 〒 112-0001
> 東京都文京区白山 4-3-2
> 3F B室
> 
> Note that the hierarchical number (4-3-2) always comes after 白山 
> (Hakusan) in the Japanese version. It can come after or before in the 
> romanized version. Also note that in Japanese, there isn't really a 
> fixed convention for line breaks; in addition, this example has a floor 
> and room designation but lacks a building name, which isn't very typical.

Aha, ok.

> 
>>    Japan
>>    112-0001
>>    Tokyo-to
>>    Bunkyo-ku
>>    4-3-2 Hakusan
>>    3rd Floor Room B
> 
> This order of address fields would be very strange for an actually 
> romanized address, the example below, with some fixes, would be much better.

Yes, I also saw this when I put an <author> entry in place and processed
it through the i18n library.

>> and the RFC7992 specification would have rendered it as either this,
>> preserving the semantic labelling of the parts, but loosing the city-region
>> part:
>> 
>>    3rd Floor Room B
>>    4-3-2 Hakusan
>>    Tokyo-to, 112-0001
>>    Japan
> 
> Romanized, it should be something like:
> 
> 3rd Floor Room B
> 4-3-2 Hakusan, Bunkyo-ku
> Tokyo, 112-0001 Japan
> 
> More or less linebreaks are okay, there isn't too much of a fixed 
> convention. The -to after Tokyo isn't used that much for romanized 
> addresses.

Ok, noted.  I'll correct my example.

Thanks for the additional input :-)


Best regards,

	Henrik


> 
> Regards,   Martin.
> 
>> or would loose all semantic labelling through forced use of postalLine for
>> all entries.
>> 
>> This problem has however been solved to a large degree by modern libraries.
>> If you can do this *right*, why continue to do it wrong?
>