This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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


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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]