[Ltru] Re: 003 vs. 021

Doug Ewell wrote:

> I disagree that 021 Northern America is an "economic
> grouping."

ACK, 021 is okay.

> I request that we use objective criteria for allowing and
> forbidding codes, not subjective labels like "obscure" and
> "dubious."

So what are your objective criteria to include 003 ?  There's
a table starting in line 149 above "001 world" and ending in
line 322 below "061 Polynesia".

The next table "Selected economic and other groupings" isn't
what we want.  Another table starts in line 382, its first
region is "002 Africa", near line 2534 within this table the
"Developed and developing regions" begin.  The last region
above the h3-header is "876 Wallis and Futuna Islands".

003 is only mentioned in a footnote at the moment.  Maybe they
found that 419 makes more sense, it certainly does for me.

Please don't argue with Navassa Island, it's uninhabited, and
it belongs to UM.  Guantanamo Bay, maybe apa-003, what else ?

Oh no, is this about the Virgin Islands ?  Major havoc for many
confused users trying 003 instead of 021 or vice versa only for
the Virgin Islands ?  They could use en-029, en-VI, or en-VG :-(

While we're at it, how do you exclude region numbers covered by
ISO 3166-1 country codes ?  Addison proposed to add the numbers
to the codes somehow, so that a future tag reviewer can do his
"same piece of land" magic when necessary.  I somehow doubt that
ISO and the UN are always in perfect synchronization, not only
for the three wellknown exceptions TW, 830, and 833.  Bye, Frank

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru