Subject: Re: re places with few to zero tripoints<br/>
Date: Apr 15, 2002 @ 15:30<br/>
Author: granthutchison (&quot;granthutchison&quot; &lt;granthutchison@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="6219.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="6223.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic6148.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="6221.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="6223.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1374393251"><blockquote><span title="ireply">&gt; i personally think the iso standard as constantly updated by <br/>
&gt; newsletters is more credible than the combined weight of the state <br/>
&gt; dept & cia because we have no assurance of rigorous standards nor <br/>
&gt; regular updating by these american sources <br/>
 </span></blockquote>FIPS is pretty regularly updated, too. The Monaco communes, for <br/>
instances, were officially deleted by the third FIPS update. But I <br/>
agree we&#39;re not really sure where they get their information from - <br/>
presumably not the UN, or they&#39;d be in agreement.<br/>
<br/>
Grant</div>