This is the mail archive of the libc-locales@sourceware.org mailing list for the GNU libc locales project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[Bug localedata/20664] Unexpected collation in en_US.UTF-8, different to ICU CLDR


https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20664

--- Comment #4 from keld at keldix dot com <keld at keldix dot com> ---
On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 11:10:56PM +0000, carlos at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20664
> 
> Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com> changed:
> 
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>              Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |WAITING
>    Last reconfirmed|                            |2016-10-03
>                  CC|                            |carlos at redhat dot com
>      Ever confirmed|0                           |1
> 
> --- Comment #1 from Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com> ---
> Going forward we want glibc to track CLDR more closely. Therefore if you can
> find a glibc version that exhibits meaningful difference between CLDR, then
> please file a report, like this one.
> 
> However, you have too many moving pieces for us to validate this, for example
> sort is not a good test case because it might itself not use glibc's collation
> tables for sorting.
> 
> Can you construct a test case with strcoll that exhibits this problem?

I do not think we should aim at following CLDR closely, but we should minimize
differences. I actually think we should get CLDR to follow us more closely:-)

Bestregards
keld

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]