On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Gimme a break. These kind of political issues aren't solved by "taking > it upstream". Since when are politicians or people under the influence > of politics known for their outstanding adherence to logic and reason? > It's not such a simple technical thing that you can "take it upstream." > If you have any idea how the ISO works you will wake up to the fact of > how ridiculous that suggestion is. If Taiwan (ROC) can't get it to > happen, what do you expect of us? I didn't mean to imply that this was a simple problem to solve (and I agree with your aim for what that's worth). Simply that we do not want to make political decisions at all. This might be a straightforward one, but it sets a precedent and next time around we might be asked to decide on something less clear-cut. > But as has been suggested maybe Arch should choose a different upstream > for this kind of information. Please open your mind a little, a false > standard is no standard at all. I had a look at ICU, but could not find any satisfactory documentation. They claim to take their data from the same ISO standard that we already use, but I could find no explanation for the discrepancy. To be a bit constructive: IMHO any proposal for a change must be made in general terms, and not by special-casing based on this issue. So, if we can find a new upstream that is comparable to ISO3166, but at the same time is somehow more "neutral", that would be something to consider I guess. I have to agree with Allan though, this issue is likely going nowhere. -t
