Fw: m49 code for Scotland?

[Debbie Garside]

John wrote:

> It sounds like if BSI (or perhaps the UK government?) asked
> for these codes (827, 828, 829) to be promoted to official
> status, they could be.
>
> Debbie?

All sorts of problems with this... Some political and some not so political.
We have the problem of Northern Ireland to consider too.

The ramifications of allocating 3166 codes for these are that it would open
the door for ccTLDs.  There are for and there are against on this issue. I
spoke with WAG and they are on the fence - which I took to mean they don't
want to rock the UK boat.

On another note, when I spoke to the 3166 MA on this very subject about 18
months ago he assured me that the codes could not be allocated as the trio
make up a geopolitical entity in its own right - UK (along with NI).  We
then get on to the codes for Guernsey, Jersey etc. and the Falklands.  It
would seem that if there is water between the geopolitical/devolved entities
they can have their own code and if there isn't they can't.  Strange but
true I fear!  But it opens up the NI issue and devolution there is a bit off
and on - on at the moment since May 2007 but we do not know for how long.
Politics, politics everywhere!

Not a simple question and not a simple answer.  I could go on, there is lots
more behind it but essentially I believe it to be a bit of a no go area.

As to Scottish English.  Bad move in my humble opinion.  I can understand
Edinburgh Standard and not Glaswegian Standard.  Where is the use in such a
code?  Better would be: en-standard_glasgow, en-standard_edinburgh etc.

Best

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no
> [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of John Cowan
> Sent: 21 August 2007 18:40
> To: Karen_Broome at spe.sony.com
> Cc: ietf-languages at iana.org
> Subject: Re: Fw: m49 code for Scotland?
>
> Karen_Broome at spe.sony.com scripsit:
>
> >
> http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/10faq/frequently-as
> > ked-questions.html#QS08
>
> Should have been #QS06, but it's not a big problem.
>
> > The 829 code you refer to are unofficial codes used primarily for
> > internal coding purposes. Technically, these codes should not be
> > posted at any of our site.
>
> It sounds like if BSI (or perhaps the UK government?) asked
> for these codes (827, 828, 829) to be promoted to official
> status, they could be.
>
> Debbie?
>
> --
> John Cowan  cowan at ccil.org   http://ccil.org/~cowan
> It's the old, old story.  Droid meets droid.  Droid becomes chameleon.
> Droid loses chameleon, chameleon becomes blob, droid gets
> blob back again.  It's a classic tale.  --Kryten, Red Dwarf
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>
>
>