Re: Experimental countrychooser branch
Quoting Denis Barbier (email@example.com):
> > The TW issue is becoming slowly a non issue as ways of translating the
> > one and only name which is controversial in iso-3166 list arises.
> It is also an issue in French since we (well, you) are bound to official
> French names.
> > The letter to ISO-3166 secretary will be soon sent as soon as I get
> > approval from DPL. Depending on the answer we get, we may decide
> > whether we deliberately choose to deviate from the standard for this
> > very particular topic.
> It has already been answered here, Taiwanese government tells that
> ISO-3166 is using United Nations's official names and won't change
I saw this answer. however, in the letter we plan to send to ISO-3166,
we point the fact that the United Nations official names DOES NOT
LONGER LIST "Taiwan, Province of China". It maybe listed it in the
past, but it doesn't anymore. I haven't been able to find a single
reference to this name in any publicly available United Nations
This is why ISO-3166 need to answer again this question.
> > But, if we do deviate, WE WILL EXPLAIN WHY.....and do not do it
> > silently just like ICU does.
> > And because this will be a deviation from an accepted standard this
> > will be validated by our Technical Comittee.
> I fail to see wy this is needed.
Because, imho, this is a case where we plan to deviate from a
standard. We have strong arguments for doing this, most of them being
motivated by the Debian Social Contract (make our possible to benefit
our users), and I think they will be even stronger if they are
accepted to Debian Technical Comittee.