> The 3166 MA has answered: > >> The change was permitted because the government of Romania urgently >> requested it. The Romanian Government wanted to see their country identified >> not by ROM but ROU on the new passports they are issuing and which are in >> line with certain EU and ICAO regulations.
How long did it take the Romanian government to notice their ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code and decide they didn't like it? Also, there is still no justification for this "urgent" request, unless you count "we don't like it" as a justification. I am reminded of the initial resistance on the part of Canada Post against assigning the abbreviation NU to the new territory of Nunavut, on the basis that "nu" is French for "nude" and that some French speakers with sensitive ears might be offended. Get over it, people! These are abbreviations. Some of them are going to spell things, or sound like things. Alain LaBont� observed that "ROM" stands for Read-Only Memory. Well, if you look through the alpha-3 codes you will find lots of complete English words, and abbreviations that sound like real words if pronounced acronymically. How many depends on how active your imagination is. >> The change of a three-letter code element is not so critical from the point >> of view of the ISO 3166/MA because there are enough code elements available. >> The change of the two-letter code element (used in the application you quote >> in your e-mail) would probably have been out of the question, first because >> there are no other good combinations left starting with "R" and second >> because the two-letter code is being used much more extensively than the >> three letter code, hence the change would have created more work for users >> of the system than for the relatively modest number of users of the alpha-3 >> code. In other words, it's OK to change the alpha-3 code because (a) it's possible and (b) nobody uses them anyway. Great. I would have felt much better if they had placed the "used much more extensively" reason FIRST, and the "no other good combinations" reason SECOND, in explaining why the alpha-2 code would not have been changed. The word "probably" also doesn't inspire much confidence. Obviously ISO 3166/MA does not have the same commitment to proactive stability -- refusing to change codes on the basis that someone *might* be affected -- that UTC and WG2 have. Of course, UTC and WG2 get flamed for refusing to change code names and positions in Unicode, so they make friends while losing others. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California
