<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 22 May 2013 20:49, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Paul_Koning@dell.com" target="_blank">Paul_Koning@dell.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>> I think we are best served with the status quo.<br>
<br>
</div>I think so too. But various people have been grinding various political axes</blockquote></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I agree. But I feel that people have taken the opportunity to grind those axes, in part, because of confusion over what the status quo actually is. As far as I'm aware, we currently match ISO 3166-1 with very few (albeit contentious) exceptions. Is that correct?<br>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Since we can't possibly get the entire world to agree on a single standard for this political aspect of the data, perhaps we'd be better served by instead using some (minimal) threshold of agreement amongst multiple standards? Or perhaps not. Frankly, I can see such an arrangement potentially creating more issues than it solves.<br>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Either way, I feel we should consider solidifying what our standard(s) are going forward, perhaps even putting it in an official document like an RFC, and then making sure our data matches. Currently, Theory only says we use ISO 3166-1 to "help decide", which opens the door to lots of the arguments we've seen in recent months.<br>
<br>Regardless of what we pick, some people will inevitably not like it (that won't be anything new), but at least we'd be able to point to something that says "this is how we've chosen to do things."<br>
<br clear="all"></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div>--<br>Tim Parenti<br></div>
</div></div>