[whatwg] ISO 639 / ISO 3166 / ISO 4217 inputs
jim.ley at gmail.com
Mon Jul 19 04:52:05 PDT 2004
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:50:04 +0100, Wrigley, Ave <ave.wrigley at itn.co.uk> wrote:
> > Do you really want to put vendors into the position of
> > deciding just what to call the Malvinas Islands? Or exactly
> > the status of palestine or the Gaza Strip.
> No ... that is why it is specified as an ISO 3166. It should be a
> requirement for browsers to be compliant to this standard.
but I don't think this standard is all that common, in the UK for
example, you nearly always get GB split up.
> > I don't really think this could be specified to be truly useful, and
> > most people will end up writing their own list anyway.
> If people are not happy with ISO 3166, then they can write their own
> list (as they do now!).
My argument is that the vast majority case will be people writing
their own, therefore we shouldn't special case the ISO-3166 case,
placing implementation and maintenance burdens on vendors (what
happens when said vendor goes bankrupt?)
[the detailed proposals don't degrade, so need to be voided straight
More information about the whatwg