Re: discrepancy in ISO 3166-1 country codes
On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 09:42:09AM +0200, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 06:40:32PM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 08:51:26PM +0200, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> > > Since your organization is the official authority for maitaining and
> > > ISO country codes, I extensively used your page
> > > http://www.din.de/gremien/nas/nabd/iso3166ma/ for the last, in need of
> > > a list of ISO 3166 country codes.
> > >
> > > The page web claims to list the ISO country codes as used in the
> > > Internet.
> > >
> > > I note that you list United Kingdom as GB although the TLD for United
> > > Kingdom, as everyone knows is UK.
> >
> > The TLD for the United Kingdom does not follow the corresponding ISO
> > country code, mainly for historical reasons.
>
> That's exactly the point of my message. While this organism claims to be the
> one reference for TLDcc,
They claim to be the one reference for ISO country codes, and certainly
as far as the UK goes they're correct. They mention that ISO country
codes are used on the Internet, but that's just informational as far as
I can tell, and is broadly correct anyway.
http://www.din.de/gremien/nas/nabd/iso3166ma/internet.html:
"The ISO 3166/MA considers this use of ISO 3166-1 to be one of the
most successful implementations of the standard ever made."
It's not a standard's fault if people implement it in a weird way.
Complain to ICANN if you don't like it, but neither the TLD nor the
standard is likely to get changed now. The UK is an anomaly, just live
with it.
Why is this on debian-devel anyway?
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: