[PATCH] [BZ 14510] Fix LC_NUMERIC for various es_* locales

[Jeff Law]

On 08/22/2012 05:19 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/localedata/locales/es_MX b/localedata/locales/es_MX
>> index 7a1cccc..13fa1a0 100644
>> --- a/localedata/locales/es_MX
>> +++ b/localedata/locales/es_MX
>> @@ -78,7 +78,9 @@ n_sign_posn          1
>> END LC_MONETARY
>>
>> LC_NUMERIC
>> -copy "es_ES"
>> +decimal_point        "<U002C>"
>
> This is wrong.
>
> The official Mexican standard with amendment says "comma or dot" for
> decimal sign and common practice is "dot". Therefore decimal_point
> should be "<U002E>."
I feel like a cut-n-paste idiot.  My intention was for decimal_point to 
be <U002E>.  The same mistake was made in several other locales in the 
patch.


> According to [1] on page 57 it states that the thousand separator must
> be a "small space" (pequeño espacio), and must never be a comma,
> point, or other symbol. There is a `thin space' <U+2009> which
> probably serves the best purpose here. Unfortunately as you can see in
> the ensuing discussion, every other standard uses <U+0020> (normal
> space) instead of <U+2009>. Nobody knows why, or what would happen if
> you used <U+2009> (non-ASCII). We assume it would get transliterated
> to <U+0020> in the right instance, but we might hit a few bugs.
>
> I'm happy to accept a patch that uses either <U+0020> or <U+2009>,
> both are forward progress on this issue for es_MX.
Is there a preference one way or the other?  It doesn't really matter to 
me, though obviously my preference is to get it right so that we don't 
have to revisit again in the future.


Once I hear back on the es_MX thousands separator issue, I'll repost the 
patch.

jeff