<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> Hi, I'm not sure what RFC 5646 regarding ISO 3166 requires here but
if</DIV>
<DIV>> the change is adopted -- then I support having the short name
Libya</DIV>
<DIV>> ( followed temporarily with a reference to the former name too if
this</DIV>
<DIV>> is allowed -- is this what Doug has suggested?).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>No, I don't suggest leaving the longer and less intuitive name after ISO
has changed away from it, unless failing to do so will cause confusion to users
of the Registry. That is to say, users are unlikely to be lost when they
find "Libya" but cannot find "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya". "Upper Volta" and
"Burkina Faso" might be an example where keeping the old name would help, if
that change had happened now instead of 27 years ago.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> Secondly:</DIV>
<DIV>> " For subtags taken from a source standard (such as ISO
639 or ISO</DIV>
<DIV>> 15924), the 'Description' fields in the record are
also initially</DIV>
<DIV>> taken from that source standard."</DIV>
<DIV>> I'm not sure what is meant by "initially" here. If the name
changes</DIV>
<DIV>> in ISO-3166, are we then at the "initial" stage again, and required
to</DIV>
<DIV>> take the new name as is?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"Initially" means "when the Registry entry was created," with either RFC
4645 or 5645.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> The main guidelines in any case seem to be in section 3.4:</DIV>
<DIV>> 3.4 "Stability of IANA Registry Entries"</DIV>
<DIV>> " 3. . . . The description MAY be</DIV>
<DIV>> broadened somewhat in scope,
changed to add information, or</DIV>
<DIV>> adapted to the most common modern
usage. For example, countries</DIV>
<DIV>> occasionally change their names; a
historical example of this is</DIV>
<DIV>> "Upper Volta" changing to "Burkina
Faso"."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think "updated to the most common modern usage" is what we are talking
about here, rather than "adding information."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>> I support making this change in the Registry if it shows up in
3166,</DIV>
<DIV>>> with the goal of keeping names brief and vernacular,</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> Do we have an option of not taking the name in 3166? (Just
curious.)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>That's essentially what we did with Bolivia and Venezuela.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>> We might also consider adding the occasional second Description
field</DIV>
<DIV>>> that matches common use, such as "South Korea" or "Iran," to ease
the</DIV>
<DIV>>> transition and reduce the potential for controversy the next
time</DIV>
<DIV>>> this happens.</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> This is fine IMO -- if it's allowed.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It's allowed, but we have been been reluctant to do so, because usually
it's not needed. There hasn't been an avalanche of recent name changes of
countries that obscure the identity of the country. In the case of Bolivia
and Venezuela, the new name is basically an embellishment of the original name,
so keeping the original was uncontroversial. This issue didn't come up
when "East Timor" became "Timor-Leste", probably because of the size and global
importance of that country.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">--<BR>Doug
Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14<BR>www.ewellic.org |
www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell
<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>