Subject: Re: ukc
Date: Jan 20, 2003 @ 16:50
Author: acroorca2002 <orc@orcoast.com> ("acroorca2002 <orc@...>" <orc@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
>alpha codes
> >for i dont think uk is proper iso for anything
>
> This is a difficult one. The ISO 3166-1 standard requires that
> reflect a unique component of the country name, which meansthat prefixes
> such as 'Kingdom' or 'Republic' are generally not permitted. Asa result
> 'GB' was chosen, although it rather confusingly stands for'Great Britain
> and Northern Ireland'.codes to be
>
> However, it's also possible for countries to ask for certain
> included in the ISO 3166 reserved list which means they can'tbe allocated
> to someone else. The UK requested that a whole host ofcodes be reserved
> (mostly for its overseas territories), but this included 'UK'.France
> (mainland), Spain (Ceuta/Melilla and the Canary Islands) andFinland (Ă…land
> Islands) did something similar.along, when
>
> The UK code was never officially used until the Internet came
> for some reason, IANA (the US government agency thatdelegates top-level
> domains) decided to delegate .uk instead of .gb (.gb wasactually delegated
> as well, but never used). The retrospective explanation wasthat IANA did
> not adopt ISO 3166-1 until after .uk was delegated, but thisdoes not
> explain why they subsequently delegated .ac (Ascension), .gg(Guernsey),
> .je (Jersey) and .im (Isle of Man) which were and still are onlyreserved
> codes. In other words, it was probably a mistake made by theUS Government.
>the country
> Thanks to the Internet, most people now seem to use 'UK' as
> code when referring to Great Britain and Northern Ireland, butthis is only
> a very recent phenomena and is technically incorrect. However,I personally
> feel it makes things clearer as I don't know of any other 'UnitedKingdoms'
> in the same way that I don't know of any other 'United States'(although I
> stand to be corrected).thanx pal
>
> The usual apologies for being slightly off-topic, but hopefully it
> clarifies Mike's point.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kevin Meynell