Well now isn't that going to be a fun one ...
The question is ... are they deviating from what USPS actually is sending back vs what USPS use to send back vs how ShipStation interpreted USPS changes and have decided that this is there way and everyone needs to do it that way?
Some places cannot work with anything but code without anything ... other places want the code the old way, some want it the new way and others let you map what you are really using to what they are really using ...
IF you were to make a number of test orders with the current USPS July 28, 2013 J5 version and then look in the database at what is really being stored in the database, are you able to in the mapping with ShipStation tell it that when your data contains:
Priority Mail Express International™
Or contains:
Priority Mail Express InternationalTM
Or contains:
Priority Mail Express International
Or contains:
Priority Mail Express International**™**
that they mean:
Priority Mail Express International
If not, how are you able to say with other places that:
United States Postal Service (Priority Mail Express International™ (With Tracking))
actually is:
Priority Mail Express International
What if you had shortened:
United States Postal Service (Priority Mail Express International™ (With Tracking))
to be:
USPS (Priority Mail Express International™ (With Tracking))
Or shortened it to be:
USPS Priority Mail Express International
How would it read all of these methods?
Or are they unable to do the mapping because now many of the trade marks and registered trade marks are in the middle of the code and they only know how to strip out 1-Day, 2-Day and 3-Day or is your code going to break is that is in the shipping method as given back from USPS?
It makes we wonder why things have to be so strict on some parts of shipping method and not on others ...
What are they doing with this code:
Priority Mail 1-DayTM
Priority Mail 2-DayTM
Priority Mail 3-DayTM
On when there is:
Priority Mail Express 1-DayTM Flat Rate Envelope
Priority Mail Express 2-DayTM Flat Rate Envelope
Priority Mail Express 3-DayTM Flat Rate Envelope
are they saying that they can handle the different number of days but not the what is used for Trad Mark and Registered Trade mark unless in the form of:
™ and ® ... that isn't even what USPS gives back ... it is in the format using the HTML numeric form and that is surrounded with other HTML code for superscript etc.
Which company is the right way?
What did they do on First Class when USPS does not even do their own First Class in the same format as the documentation?
Please do not think my aggrevation extends to you, as it does not and I appreciate you bringing this up ... but so far, I think we need to have a few more step up with how their individual shipping is being affected for those using things like ShipStation and other methods that have an interface that cannot do the mapping properly as I am not feeling really confident that what ShipStation wants is the same as the next guy and the next ...
What I am trying to avoid is running into a fix for one breaks it for all ...
I am starting to think that the final data in the database should be stripped completely of RM and TM and ™ and ® and ™ and ® and anthing derived from USPS's new code of <sup>™</sup> and ```
<sup>®</sup>
I am also curious how many when they read:
2013-july-webtools-release-notes.rtf
see the numeric values #174; and #8482; and how many see the ™ and ® ... I have opened that in a few word processors and they display differently and sometimes the same word processor has shown one way other the other on the same day ... talk about a confusing situation!
Do they have more information or full documention of this?
Other than USPS changing their mind mid-year about what has a registered trade mark and what is trade marked and where that belongs and whether it is Express or Priority Express, which of these companies is the "right way" for USPS vs should they all be interfaces where you tell them what you are using and they just strip it on their mapping interface?
The more information that you might be able to provide the better on this one ...
What were you using in January 2013?