follow up on David Putman's comments

[Max Voskob <max.voskob@paradise.net.nz>]

Hi David,

I was going thru your comments that I printed out some time ago.

I think I reflected some of your suggestions, but I'd like to clarify some others.


--- Order of elements ---
On the one hand the order of free text address must be preserved, on the other, the presentation is locale dependent.
I suggest the only requirement:
1. The order must be preserved

How the address is presented is for the implementation to decide.
Ultimately, it is the humans that will use the address or the address must go thru a parser to be used by machines for some sorting or delivery purposes.
-------------------------

--- Administrative area vs. Locality ---
I agree that the boundary is very vague. Shall we merge them and make a hierarchical structure where one area is included in the other?
It is unlikely to go down further than 3 levels.
----------------------------------------

--- Postal elements ---
What are the alternatives to the current structure?
You are saying it's not that good, but I can't think of anything better.
Any suggestions?
-----------------------

--- Care of ---
Look, I'm confused myself here who's in care of who. We need revisit this with more use cases.
---------------

--- Examples ---
Most of the examples were made up leading to poor diversity.
What we need is a bunch of realistic and diverse examples. 
Let's create and maintain a doco with examples. It will allow us to rebuild test cases when the schema changes.
----------------

Cheers,
Max