Ok. I wasn't clear enough. Certainly boundaries are political and relevant,
as is the fact that they change. What is not relevant is talking about
particular country's motivations and actions.
Moreover, you insist about writing a tome about this. In other words, TL;DR.
Mark <https://google.com/+MarkDavis>
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p_at_wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> The political subject is immediately related to the designation of flags
> and their association to ISO 3166-1 and -2 encoded entities. Even if you
> don't like it, this is very political and for a standard seeking for
> stability, I wonder how any flag (directly bound to specific political
> entities at specific dates and within some boundaries which may be
> contested) can be related to ISO 3166 and its instability (and the fact
> that ISO 3166 entities have in fact also no defined borders, so that ISO
> 3166-2 is just a political point of view from the current ruler of the
> current ISO 3166-1 entity).
>
> All this topic is political. In fact the real flags are not even encoded
> with RIS, not even for current nations (and there's still a problem to know
> what is a recognized nation, even when just considering the UN definition.
> Political entities are defined but with fuzzy borders, they just represent
> in fact some local governments, not necessarily their lands, people, or
> cultures, and in some cases they are in exil or not even ruling: their seat
> in the UN is vacant and they exist only on the paper, but even UN members
> disagree about which treaty they recognize).
>
...
Received on Thu Jul 02 2015 - 07:07:02 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Jul 02 2015 - 07:07:02 CDT