This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: short day translations vs cldr entries
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, Marko Myllynen <myllynen at redhat dot com>, Mike Fabian <mfabian at redhat dot com>, Keld Simonsen <keld at keldix dot com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 15:54:31 -0500
- Subject: Re: short day translations vs cldr entries
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20160209075302 dot GH7732 at vapier dot lan>
On 02/09/2016 02:53 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> Spanish languages in glibc use:
> but the CLDR uses:
This is better than what we have, particularly for translating
entire phrases. The added period makes the name slightly longer
but disambiguates and makes the shortform clearer in writing.
I looked over your log file and nothing jumps out as wrong.
I did some test translations with Google and things look sane.
We should bulk update from CLDR as soon as 2.24 opens.
We do not have enough language experts to cover all languages.
We do not have any active language experts pushing the glibc
Literally everyone and their uncle is using the CLDR data and
glibc experts simply need to integrate with CLDR properly and
get that data updated if there are problems.
Consider this a +1 from a GNU Maintainer for glibc that we
should be synchronizing with CLDR and Unicode as is continually
We can always back out individual changes if we want given bug
reports (that's what version control is for). However, CLDR
has much better tools for handling all of this (survey tool).
Supporting a unified world-wide effort via CLDR is the way to go.