This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: short day translations vs cldr entries
- From: keld at keldix dot com
- To: Marko Myllynen <myllynen at redhat dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 15:22:24 +0100
- Subject: Re: short day translations vs cldr entries
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20160209075302 dot GH7732 at vapier dot lan> <56B9AD0D dot 6030008 at redhat dot com>
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 11:10:37AM +0200, Marko Myllynen wrote:
> 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.