Julian Cable <julian.cable@bbc.co.uk> writes:
Yes, I would, which suggests that a 'disputed' country is a bad idea, but that putting the zones in each country works better.
It is important to NOT choose.
Unfortunately, putting the zone in both countries is also choosing, since in some of these cases there is a hot political debate over whether the dispute exists. See, for example, the historic situation with Taiwan, in which *both* parties hotly contested the idea that there are two separate countries. (I realize that this has evolved over time and is far more complex than my simple sentence.) We used to run into these problems quite routinely with Usenet newsgroup naming. My experience is that there is simply no safe option. Everything you do, including merely acknowledging the existence of a dispute, will anger someone. The best you can do is manage to find an approach that angers as few people as possible, or somehow punt the problem to some other authority that you can follow blindly and thereby dodge responsibility for the problem. (And frequently even *that* just moves the problem to a debate over which authority to punt to.) -- Russ Allbery (eagle@eyrie.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>