Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Gibraltar<br/>
Date: Jun 09, 2004 @ 14:56<br/>
Author: Kevin Meynell (Kevin Meynell &lt;knm@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="14315.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="14323.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic14288.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="14317.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="14319.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1981967818"><blockquote><span title="ireply">&gt;Just reinforces the status of Gibraltar as the worst geopolitical pimple <br/>
&gt;on the face of the earth since Hong Kong and Macao became SARs of China.<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>I have long been of the opinion that external territories/dependencies <br/>
should be identified by their specific ISO 3166-1 entry for <br/>
geopolitical/geophysical purposes. This does produce a few anomalies, but I <br/>
still think it&#39;s more accurate than claiming such territories are integral <br/>
parts of the parent country.<br/>
<br/>
There is arguably a case for producing separate codes for &#39;federated&#39; <br/>
states (e.g. Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of the Netherlands, China) so one <br/>
can clearly distinguish between the parent state or the combined entity.<br/>
<br/>
Regards,<br/>
<br/>
Kevin Meynell</div>