Re: Locales: Thousands separator

[Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak at lingonborough dot com>]

20.06.2018 10:10 Marko Myllynen <myllynen@redhat.com> wrote:
> [...]
> This means that due to the glibc change there is now inconsistency
> between the affected glibc locales and any CLDR-using platform. As a
> concrete example, Java 9 enabled CLDR locale data by default [3], so
> this inconsistency is not limited to cases across different systems but
> there might be applications running on a recent GNU/Linux system using
> different thousands separator.

As far as I know Java uses its own implementation of ICU internally
(icu4j, if I remember correctly).  It does not attempt to use or to
imitate the libc API (I mean the functions like sprintf or strfromd
or strftime).  So it is easier to compare it with libicu rather than
glibc.

> I have been under impression that the long-term plan for glibc locales
> would be to use CLDR data as source to the extent possible [...]

True although I always assumed that the differences between CLDR
and glibc would be allowed if we have a good reason to differ.

> [...]
> Given the considerations above, what do the glibc maintainers think
> about the current situation, is this inconsistency seen as an issue?

That was going to be my question.  Actually two questions:

1. Are there users complaining about this change?  By users I mean
   both the application developers (who use glibc to develop their
   applications) and actual end users (who see the output generated
   by glibc).
2. Does this change cause any technical problems, like application
   failures or malfunctions?

> 1)
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=70a6707fa15e63591d991761be025e26e8d02bb6
> 2) https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-11/msg00062.html
> 3)
> https://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/intl/internationalization-enhancements-jdk-9.htm
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Marko Myllynen


20.06.2018 17:20 Stanislav Brabec <sbrabec@suse.cz> wrote:
> [...]
> Created ticket now:
> https://unicode.org/cldr/trac/ticket/11217

Thank you.  Is it likely that we get an answer from CLDR soon?
It would be bad to flash the git reverts.

That said, although I like the change from NBSP to NNBSP, my
preference of NNBSP over NBSP is weak so I am not going to
object against reverting back to NBSP if you guys decide this.

Regards,

Rafal