> Just say "choose location" and get over with it... There has been at least one report that "location" (it has been used in the past) may sound too vague.
My opinion has been that as long as we use iso-3166 the best is using the wording of iso-3166 for designating the entries in the list. > I say we should go for the short names on the maps... is _less_ likely > to have any conflict with those. I'm afraid you're just dreaming...:-) Which maps? Chinese ones or Taiwanese ones? Greek ones or Macedonian ones? I guess you got the point. Some have suggested using the National Geographic maps. Though I'm a monthly reader of the NG magazine, I think that they also may be politically biased (NGM has recently shown some signs of political orientations which have indeed hurted several of their non-US readers as well as some US readers). Finding an internationnaly recognised standard for these highly sensitive topics such as country names is *very* difficult. Up to now, I'm still convinced that the less bad list is iso-3166 (Denis Barbier proposal is also the use of iso-3166 as ICU codes are officially announced to use iso-3166). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]