mrc at CAC.Washington.EDU
Thu Oct 20 18:37:50 CEST 2005
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, John Cowan wrote:
> Currently there is no country code for Scotland other than GB.
> If you wish this changed (and I'm certainly not against it), talk to BSI,
> as they are the *only* authority that can do anything about it (by requesting
> codes from UNSD, who then passes them to ISO 3166/MA).
I wish that I understood what a "country" was in the minds of
BSI/UNSD/ISO. My layman's interpretation of a "country" (an independent
nation) is clearly not what they use, as recent examples demonstrate.
Given these examples, I don't understand why "continental US" isn't a
country; nor do I understand why each of the original thirteen colonies,
Texas, and Hawaii aren't countries; nor why Tibet, Kurdistan, Basque,
Chechnya, Okinawa, Normandy, etc. aren't countries; etc. ad nauseum.
The best answer that I can determine is "it doesn't have to make sense,
I wonder if this means that sooner or later, language tags should strike
out independently and create their own registry of geographic/regional
tags that are independent of contemporary political considerations?
Mind you; this isn't a serious proposal for the short term. I'm just
thinking out loud. The obvious flaw in the idea is the presumption that,
somehow, we could do a better job. The UN recently suffered severe
credibility problems due to corruption and the corrupting nature of
politics; it's hubris to believe that any of us are somehow immune.
Nonetheless, if you were to do it differently, how would you do it?
-- Mark --
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
More information about the Ietf-languages