[ic] Chapman codes

Mike Heins mike at perusion.com
Sat Aug 7 11:21:54 EDT 2004

Quoting Lyn St George (lyn at zolotek.net):
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 00:28:53 -0400, Mike Heins wrote:
> >I have tried hard over the years to make Interchange at least somewhat
> >friendly to non-US users and consumers.
> >
> >Nonetheless, it is common for we Americans to get bashed for being
> >insensitive to the geography of other countries. Perhaps deservedly
> >so in some cases, but I believe we are handicapped by the lack of
> >standard convention on postal codes. Try and find an authoritative
> >list of states/provinces, and see what you find.
> In fact, Mike, you have made a real effort despite the opinions of a very small 
> minority of vocal complainants. 

Dear Lyn,

Thanks for the input, it is appreciated.

> >Probably the most common complaints are about the choices we made
> >for the UK, and over time I have added numerous counties/regions/provinces
> >(though I am far from sure of the distinction).
> Politics - nothing to do with common sense :/ One thing though;  the
> three capitals - London for England, Edinburgh for Scotland and
> Cardiff for Wales - exist independently of the county/shire system, ie
> the "state" field should be empty. (I just add an empty/ 'n/a' line to
> state.txt)
> >I recently ran across the Chapman codes which are usually related to
> >geneology, and wonder if this type of abbreviation is accepted for
> >addressing. Looking at the Royal Mail specs, it seems that it isn't
> >even necessary to have a county/region/province name, just the
> >town and postal code suffices.
> >
> >Should we 
> >
> >	1) Use Chapman codes
> >        2) Put in a mechanism to totally remove the state/province for
> >           certain countries, based on some data in the country table
> These codes are new to me, but I wouldn't use them for addressing
> postal mail and I've never them used for this. And it's correct that
> the region is not needed - the house number and postcode give
> enough information (not even the town or street are needed, and
> if you give a computerised lookup system your postcode then they
> only ask for your house number to get the final address).

This is what I am gleaning. All of these codes seem to be found on
geneology sites, and nowhere do I find any indication that they
are commonly in use elsewhere.

> >Does anyone with some real knowledge know what is best?
> >
> >I guess this query is not only for the UK but for other countries. For
> >instance, I have a very nice list of Norwegian locales that could be
> >used, but is that even appropriate?
> At the end of the day, it seems to me that the range of possible 
> variations is simply too large to try to second-guess. If people who
> live in different parts of the world and have sorted out their local
> system were to send you their personal lists for 'state.txt', then I would
> suggest that you could include them along with a note to the effect
> that "this requires local knowledge - edit to suit". 

What I have come up with is a "no_state" field in country.txt which I
will put in the standard demo. If it is set, the checkout forms will
not display a state/province box at all, just city and postal code.

The "multistate" order check method only requires a state/province
in the US and Canada. Though I suspect there are other countries that
might require a state, I have no authoritative knowledge that any do. 

Mike Heins
Perusion -- Expert Interchange Consulting    http://www.perusion.com/
phone +1.765.647.1295  tollfree 800-949-1889 <mike at perusion.com>

Few blame themselves until they have exhausted all other possibilities.
 -- anonymous

More information about the interchange-users mailing list