The following sold me:
http://www.webmonkey.com/2010/09/microdata-html5s-best-kept-secret/

http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=99170

http://html5doctor.com/microformats/#hcard (example in this post also)

Look forward to feedback ^-^

The address element represents contact information.

source: http://www.w3.org/TR/html-markup/address.html

There is no reason (looking at the specs) why you should not mark up a postal address in there.

You write that “the address element was not created for postal addresses” and try to provide a bit of proof by writing “To reinforce this, the latest spec stipulates that the address element must not be used to represent arbitrary addresses” with a link to the specs.

Did you take the time to read those specs yourself?

They clearly state: “The address element must not be used to represent arbitrary addresses (e.g. postal addresses), unless those addresses are in fact the relevant contact information. (The p element is the appropriate element for marking up postal addresses in general.)”

So, YES, you can put a postal address in an address tag… as long as you remember that the address tag should be seen like some of the new HTML5 tags (section,article,figure,time,etc.), as the “address” tag enables the classification of a document’s content sections just like those new HTML5 tags. In the end, it’s the thought of tags like “address” that is currently being re-injected into the HTML5 specs.

But hey, these are just my two cents. I’m not going to try to stop you from spreading a bit of misinformation, just because you – as you write – seem to be part of a group of “confused” people and lost in your own interpretation of what you think you see.

See, there is no option for confusion. Read the docs and follow their lead. Don’t try to make it more difficult than it is, just because your brain is used to crack harder nuts. ;)

I wonder what div-ities and span-mania will morph into?

Think we’ll footer in header disease from someone?

What if I want to show a video of an address. is this OK?

<address>
<video></video>
</address>

Semantics, its’ different for everybody… I think!

In earlier specifications, I was always among the camp choosing to take the words “address _may_ include” from the specification more liberally. Admittedly, the new language in the HTML5 spec leave less wiggle room, by explicitly stating the element’s intention: “The address element provides contact information for a document or part of a document.” I do however find the “part of a document” intriguing. Obviously, this could refer to a section of a page with alternate authorship, such as a multiple-author blog or a comment.

However, it seems to make just as just as much semantic sense to me to use to provide contact information for a document _not_ authored by the subject. For example, if I have a page about Stephen King, called Stephen King, how does it make any less sense to use for his contact info? I’ve found very little info about why such a restriction would be beneficial. Perhaps we should think carefully before stating that this approach is definitively “the wrong way”. If that is the W3C intention, however, then I may still exercise discretion in how closely I adhere to it…