Quoting Christian Perrier: > > Quoting Julian Mehnle ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > > But that's the point! The name is objectionable from a technical > > perspective: it's unnecessarily long and bulky. We are not writing > > "Germany (Federal Republic of)", so why write "Taiwan (Province of > > China)"? Just because some piece of paper says it? > > Because a *standard* says it. When it comes to technical things, no > one ever thinks about deriving the standards because (s)he doesn't > like them. You'd better try to change the standard and I know this is > what most Debian Developers will try to do.....and, meanwhile, they > will apply it, just for keeping what we always claim to be one of Free > Software strengths?: commitment to standards.
We all agree that commitmenting to a technical standard is very important to Debian Developers. But, What the country name should be is not a technical issue. It is a political issue. No one will be complaining when the Debian Developers applying to a technical standard. But when it is a political issue, the Debian Developers should be very careful with it. I recommend to use the country code data from "icu-data" package. I know some country codes form "icu-data" package do not conform to ISO-3166, But, they are more simple, and less controversial wording. When something is controversial in the "icu-data" package, We can discuss it, try to find another better wording , then fix it. I think it is more free then commitmenting to ISO-3166 toughly. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
