It was not just about it but on the fact that nothing is solved and for
things that Unicode does not want to support, there should be a better way
using existing standards to bind some object with semantics taken from a
blind but easily parsable object (here an URI ,without the need to reinvent
a way to encode it, just a plain URI just surrounded by a couple of
controls). No need then to describe what will be in that URI, it will just
need to be interpreted as a unique indentifier within some namespace.
With that it will be possible to create catalogs and standardize a few of
them. The system will not be limited to geopolitical entities. And nobody
will need to support all the namespaces or even to perform any external
query to some rogue server delivering malicious content. The URI could
still embed a small image using the "data:" URI scheme.
Also I criticize the fact of using RIS to decribe a "standard" feature in
the UCS, when they will be bound to unstable ISO standards which are
already politically biased. RIS was a bad choice the way it was specified,
and even its specification does not fully conforms to these ISO standards.
2015-07-02 14:05 GMT+02:00 Mark Davis ☕️ <mark_at_macchiato.com>:
> 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 - 07:22:06 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Jul 02 2015 - 07:22:06 CDT