Re: short day translations vs cldr entries

[keld at keldix dot com]

On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 11:10:37AM +0200, Marko Myllynen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2016-02-09 09:53, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > should glibc localedata conform entirely to what is in cldr ?
> 
> I think most of the localization experts and national agencies are
> contributing to CLDR so in general I think the answer would be yes.
> However, we probably should not blindly copy what is in CLDR but check
> the differences before merging and if we think glibc is more correct
> than CLDR then submit change requests to CLDR. In the end it would be
> very beneficial to have glibc and CLDR in sync. Of course there might be
> some corner cases where this is not possible, we might need to prepare
> for some expections (and some data is only available in glibc).
> 
> I'm not sure about the exact cases you asked wrt German/French short
> dates but I think in general your script seems to be doing the right
> thing so far given that there has been no changes seen yet for fi_FI
> which AFAIK should already be in sync between glibc and CLDR.

My understanding of contributers to CLDR is that they are only a handful of experts,
and that only a few national agencies are contributing, including Finland and India.

I believe we have more contributers in glibc-i18n than there are contributers to
CLDR. Furthermore CLDR has been unresponsive to some requests, including Danish
requests. So I would not recommend that we just follow what they say. 
We should take input from them, but not automativcally align.

best regards
Keld