Re: CLDR support?

[Chris Leonard <cjlhomeaddress at gmail dot com>]

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Steven Loomis <srl@icu-project.org> wrote:
> Dear [g]libc-locales,
>   I read with interest the message from last week
> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-locales/2016-q2/msg00246.html
>
> In particular from Mike Frysinger:
>>we have recently started a process to try and align the two bodies so we aren't duplicating effort.
>
> What is the status of this process? Would it be helpful to have some discussion with the CLDR-TC?
>
> Regards,
> Steven


I think such a discussion would be helpful.  glibc locales and CLDR
locales are substantially overlapping subsets, with similar overall
diffs in terms of unique languages covered. CLDR requires more
translation effort (given the ISO language, country and script
elements included), but this is not an insurmountable obstacle to
"upstreaming" unmatched glibc locales or even less so to
"downstreaming" unmatched CLDR locales.

The real challenges come in agreeing on certain corner cases where
glibc uses a more specific ISO code for a language (e.g. quz for
Quechua (Cuzco-Collao) instead of rolling up to the qu macro-language
code).  As the commiter of the quz locale and having contact with
Quechua-speakers and a substantial body of potential users in Peru, I
have concerns about the indiscriminate clustering of distinct
languages  (e.g. quz, quy) under macrolanguage codes like qu.

Such matters are clearly amenable to reasoned discussion (including
stake-holder input) and compromise, as there is a shared commitment to
use of appropriate standards and only minor differences in how to
apply them in a given case.

cjl