Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

[Philippe Verdy]

2017-03-30 11:48 GMT+02:00 Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper at crissov.de>:

> Philippe Verdy <verdy_p at wanadoo.fr> hat am 30. März 2017 um 00:40
> geschrieben:
>
> > There's no ISO 3166-1 code for Europe at the whole (does it exist
> legally if
> > we can't clearly define its borders?)
>
> `150` in UN M.49 which ISO 3166-1 was derived from and is compatible with.
> CLDR
> could safely adopt that if needed.
>

I have not seen a clear statement that UN M.49 code 150 for Europe (as a
whole) was related to the EU assignment in ISO 3166-1 which refers to the
European Union (but in fact still refers legally to the European Community
the only part legally recognized, even the the European Union attempted to
unify the communities this unification was partial, and three separat
"pilars" were kept). I've clearly read that EU was assigned in ISO3166 only
because of its use in WIPO standards. There are some other assignments made
for keeping compatibility with ITU standards, or with the Postal Union.

Note the ITU also defines a "European broadcasting region" that covers
north Africa and come countries of the Middle East: it is the base of
existence of the EBU (Eurovision), the second base being also the Council
of Europe one or the other being a requirement for full membership. The ITU
definition is appropriate because it matchs with coverage areas by
satellites.

So I don't think there is any equivalence between code 150 and code EU
(which includes parts outside 150, for example some of the French and Dutch
overseas dependencies in America, and Africa).

After the "Brexit" we don't know if GB will still be part of EU for WIPO
standards.. But British domain names registered in the ".eu" ccTLD will
remain valid (the TLD is not bound to the same rules as WIPO standards). As
far as I have seen GB will keep its existing status in WIPO so it should
still be part the "EU" code in ISO3166-1, unless its own membership in WIPO
is amended (I have doubt it will ever happen, GB would loose some of their
existing IP right protection).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20170330/756ea20a/attachment.html>