Hi, On 15.08.25 23:12, Andrew (andy) Newton wrote:
On 8/15/25 16:39, Jasdip Singh wrote:[JS2] Yes, following the RFC 1958 section 3.2 advice is laudable but not if it ends up excluding a real-world use case where structured address components don’t work for some economies.Relatedly, Andy shared that general RDAP clients already support both structured and unstructured ways for jCard.Thanks Jasdip. I meant to reply to this thread earlier. Generalized clients already need to handle both structured and unstructured. In addition to the structured addresses being unlikely to work for all world economies, there is the very real issue that many registration databases have old data that was never collected any true structured format and therefore cannot easily be presented structurally (or are very inaccurate when they are).
PK> Generalised clients do not make a case IMHO. They don't care about really doing anything with the data, they just push the data as received to the output. Structured for structured output. Unstructured for unstructured output. Where it really matters are the clients which really want to process this kind of data. If the input can be structured or unstructured, they have to compensate and either fallback to unstructured, or try to digest structured data from unstructured input (with a lot of trouble when doing so and with a lot of less knowledge about nature of the data), or abort.
Kind Regards, Pawel
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
