This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Locales: Use CLDR matching thousands separator
- From: Marko Myllynen <myllynen at redhat dot com>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak at lingonborough dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 11:40:41 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Locales: Use CLDR matching thousands separator
- References: <eb1814b5-cae3-8472-ece6-44bec12d570b@redhat.com> <a2a29fbe-6872-c123-d4d0-2b8664825e72@redhat.com> <1786676151.161483.1534532463077@poczta.nazwa.pl> <9848a4de-2b6e-895b-d601-1358b79ef9f9@redhat.com>
- Reply-to: Marko Myllynen <myllynen at redhat dot com>
Hi,
On 21/08/2018 05.18, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 08/17/2018 03:01 PM, Rafal Luzynski wrote:
>> 16.08.2018 11:28 Marko Myllynen <myllynen@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> But currently it is
>>> unclear when, if ever, that might happen, it could be several releases
>>> (years) from now.
>>>
>>> Perhaps do nothing for now, and prior next release try to conclude from
>>> the CLDR ticket whether it then seems warranted to apply this patch or not?
>>
>> I hoped Unicode would reply more quickly. If it does not then your idea looks
>> like a good middle ground.
>
> Agreed.
It looks like this approach paid off, there's been a recent update on
the CLDR ticket that gives an impression that it might be best to keep
using NNBSP in glibc as CLDR is perhaps a little closer adapting NNBSP
as well:
https://unicode.org/cldr/trac/ticket/11217
So I think we should not apply this patch for 2.29. We should still
recheck the CLDR status around this at some later point for a possible
final decision and in case it would be (perhaps slightly unanticipated)
to stick with NBSP then we'd need to reconsider this for glibc as well.
Thanks,
--
Marko Myllynen