Re: short day translations vs cldr entries

[Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>]

On 09 Feb 2016 15:22, keld@keldix.com wrote:
> 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.

if you don't think we should do a full sync, then please look at my
list of changes in this thread and say which ones you think we should
ignore and why.
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature