3 ms·

England, Scotland, and Wales all have Unicode flags. So do British Overseas territories (e.g UK Virgin Islands) and crown dependencies (e.g. Jersey). As do US T

England, Scotland, and Wales all have Unicode flags. So do British Overseas territories (e.g UK Virgin Islands) and crown dependencies (e.g. Jersey). As do US Territories (e.g. Puerto Rico). America had a much stronger flag culture than, say, Jersey. We see local and state flags flown at private residences. I’d certainly use my state if it was in Unicode.

skissane 4y ago
> England, Scotland, and Wales all have Unicode flags. So do British Overseas territories (e.g UK Virgin Islands) and crown dependencies (e.g. Jersey). As do US Territories (e.g. Puerto Rico). With the exception of England, Scotland and Wales, all of that’s just due to following ISO 3166-1, which covers both countries and significant external territories; you might say that it treats the layer as if they were in some sense similar to the former. Sticking to 3166-1 excuses the Unicode Consortium from getting involved in the politically fraught question of which countries to recognise. National subdivisions such as the countries of the UK or the states of the US are ISO 3166-2. 3166-2 flags, including US state ones, are in Unicode, but they are non-RGI-meaning vendors are permitted to implement them, but neither required nor recommended to do so, and users should not expect them to be supported except on specific platforms or configurations. What about England, Scotland and Wales? I think there is a justification for that inconsistency: they are considered to be “countries” (including by 3166-2), even if “countries-within-a-country”. This is not purely a linguistic thing-some international sporting competitions treat them as separate countries, and they have lengthy histories of independence. By contrast, almost nobody considers US states to be “countries”, most never have been independent countries, and even the few of those who have been independent have almost all been so briefly (a few decades at most) rather than for many centuries. Hawaii arguably comes closest to qualifying, but very few Americans would call its contemporary incarnation a “country”. And note that Northern Ireland’s flag is non-RGI, but 3166-2 does not officially classify it as a “country”, and calling it that is politically extremely controversial (it appeals to some Unionists/Loyalists, but offends Nationalists/Republicans.)
- pyuser583 4y ago
  I don’t see UKs “country” being much different from the US “states.” In some ways US states are even more independent. England doesn’t have its own government or Capitol, nor does it want one. Sure Scotland was independent, about 500 years ago, but I don’t think that’s very important to the Unicode consortium. I suspect the concern is simply upkeep. There 50 state flags, and they are changed pretty frequently.
  - skissane 4y ago
    I think what’s actually important to the Unicode Consortium is this - “countries” get RGI, non-“countries” don’t. Too many of the latter. But we don’t want to decide what is a “country” - we don’t want to evaluate ourselves factors like those you mention (degree of independence), since that’s politically fraught and largely beyond our expertise. We just want to defer to some existing international standard and let them take all the heat - and such a standard exists, ISO 3166. ISO 3166-1 lists “countries”; it also lists many (but not all) “dependent territories” and one or two “special areas”, but there is a well-established international precedent for treating the latter two as if they were “countries” (see e.g. ccTLDs). However, ISO 3166-2 also labels subdivisions as “countries”, but only in two cases - the UK and the Netherlands. The Netherlands case is irrelevant for flags, because all of its “countries” either have 3166-1 codes too, or else lack flags. But the UK has three “countries” which do have flags, so those flags get RGI. Denmark and France contain “countries” too, but not according to 3166-2; but even if 3166-2 was updated to include them, it still wouldn’t make a difference, since they all either have 3166-1 codes too or lack their own flag. Maybe, someone will convince Hawaii to declare itself a “country within the United States”, and 3166-2 will then be updated to list Hawaii as a “country” - then the Hawaiian flag would get Unicode RGI status. I really doubt all the other 49 would ever do that though.
    - pyuser583 4y ago
      You kind of sent me on a scavenger hunt … I learned that Scotland and France were both founded in the same year: 843. I understand the importance of standards, but I think the importance of the word “country” is a bit overblown. The USSR had countries, some of which had 3166-1 codes, and some of which did not. And ultimately why would the name country be that important?

skissane 4y ago

> England, Scotland, and Wales all have Unicode flags. So do British Overseas territories (e.g UK Virgin Islands) and crown dependencies (e.g. Jersey). As do US Territories (e.g. Puerto Rico). With the exception of England, Scotland and Wales, all of that’s just due to following ISO 3166-1, which covers both countries and significant external territories; you might say that it treats the layer as if they were in some sense similar to the former. Sticking to 3166-1 excuses the Unicode Consortium from getting involved in the politically fraught question of which countries to recognise. National subdivisions such as the countries of the UK or the states of the US are ISO 3166-2. 3166-2 flags, including US state ones, are in Unicode, but they are non-RGI-meaning vendors are permitted to implement them, but neither required nor recommended to do so, and users should not expect them to be supported except on specific platforms or configurations. What about England, Scotland and Wales? I think there is a justification for that inconsistency: they are considered to be “countries” (including by 3166-2), even if “countries-within-a-country”. This is not purely a linguistic thing-some international sporting competitions treat them as separate countries, and they have lengthy histories of independence. By contrast, almost nobody considers US states to be “countries”, most never have been independent countries, and even the few of those who have been independent have almost all been so briefly (a few decades at most) rather than for many centuries. Hawaii arguably comes closest to qualifying, but very few Americans would call its contemporary incarnation a “country”. And note that Northern Ireland’s flag is non-RGI, but 3166-2 does not officially classify it as a “country”, and calling it that is politically extremely controversial (it appeals to some Unionists/Loyalists, but offends Nationalists/Republicans.)

pyuser583 4y ago
I don’t see UKs “country” being much different from the US “states.” In some ways US states are even more independent. England doesn’t have its own government or Capitol, nor does it want one. Sure Scotland was independent, about 500 years ago, but I don’t think that’s very important to the Unicode consortium. I suspect the concern is simply upkeep. There 50 state flags, and they are changed pretty frequently.
- skissane 4y ago
  I think what’s actually important to the Unicode Consortium is this - “countries” get RGI, non-“countries” don’t. Too many of the latter. But we don’t want to decide what is a “country” - we don’t want to evaluate ourselves factors like those you mention (degree of independence), since that’s politically fraught and largely beyond our expertise. We just want to defer to some existing international standard and let them take all the heat - and such a standard exists, ISO 3166. ISO 3166-1 lists “countries”; it also lists many (but not all) “dependent territories” and one or two “special areas”, but there is a well-established international precedent for treating the latter two as if they were “countries” (see e.g. ccTLDs). However, ISO 3166-2 also labels subdivisions as “countries”, but only in two cases - the UK and the Netherlands. The Netherlands case is irrelevant for flags, because all of its “countries” either have 3166-1 codes too, or else lack flags. But the UK has three “countries” which do have flags, so those flags get RGI. Denmark and France contain “countries” too, but not according to 3166-2; but even if 3166-2 was updated to include them, it still wouldn’t make a difference, since they all either have 3166-1 codes too or lack their own flag. Maybe, someone will convince Hawaii to declare itself a “country within the United States”, and 3166-2 will then be updated to list Hawaii as a “country” - then the Hawaiian flag would get Unicode RGI status. I really doubt all the other 49 would ever do that though.
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    You kind of sent me on a scavenger hunt … I learned that Scotland and France were both founded in the same year: 843. I understand the importance of standards, but I think the importance of the word “country” is a bit overblown. The USSR had countries, some of which had 3166-1 codes, and some of which did not. And ultimately why would the name country be that important?