This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: short day translations vs cldr entries
- From: Marko Myllynen <myllynen at redhat dot com>
- To: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 11:10:37 +0200
- Subject: Re: short day translations vs cldr entries
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20160209075302 dot GH7732 at vapier dot lan>
- Reply-to: Marko Myllynen <myllynen at redhat dot com>
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.