Re: de_DE has been using the wrong group separator for over 18 years

[Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>]

On 04/18/2018 11:10 PM, kdex wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 11:35:31 AM CEST Florian Weimer wrote:
> > On 04/18/2018 10:30 AM, kdex wrote:
> > > While the Federal Ministry of Finance may be an interesting (or even
> > > ironic) source to point out, it is in no way normative, and their website
> > > is mostly subject to their team of web developers.
> >
> > »Rund 32.000 Experten aus Wirtschaft und Forschung, von Verbraucherseite
> > und der öffentlichen Hand bringen ihr Fachwissen in den Normungsprozess
> > ein, den DIN als privatwirtschaftlich organisierter Projektmanager steuert.«
> >
> > <https://www.din.de/de/ueber-normen-und-standards/basiswissen>
> >
> > And as that web page explains, DIN norms aren't normative, either.  Our
> > users expect that the locales follow actual practice, not what some
> > document says that they have never seen and nobody has read.  (For
> > example, I can't easily tell whether the DIN-proposed keyboard layout
> > for German provides a convenient way to enter the relevant space character.)

> By the same argument, you could easily pitch abandoning all norms; most people
> will likely not have seen or read any norm in their lives; the majority just
> replicates what others do, or whatever Duden states.

Yes, but when it comes to natural languages, it is our job (as glibc 
maintainers updating locale definitions) to document the existing 
practice, and not to try to change it.  For whatever reason, DIN 
standards are a poor guidance for maintaining locales, and so are the 
reference materials Duden publishes.

> So yes, it is true that it there is no requirement to follow DIN norms, nor is
> there a requirement to follow Duden's word spellings; though I don't see how a
> seemingly arbitrary group separator with no normative grounds is any better.

I can't access the DIN process documents.  We would have to review why 
they rejected the dot separator when it was widely used, sometimes when 
the standards were created for the first time.  There has to be some 
rationale for the discrepancy.

Based on the publicly available information, the choice to make the dot 
or the space normative in this context appears to be totally arbitrary.

> The purpose of a norm is to have a common system that everyone can follow.
> Doesn't deviating from the norm defy the very purpose of having norms in the
> first place?

For norms in the area of natural language, the norms should document 
existing practice.  Everything else does not make sense and leads to 
poor adoption.  If there is no consensus, you can document multiple 
options (see prototype and non-prototype function definitions in C90, 
for an example in the area of programming languages, where you would 
expect that more rigidness would be appropriate, not less).

> Hence, the point is less that locale users need the ability to have U+2009
> mapped on their keyboards somewhere, but rather that users should be able to
> input regular numbers and rely on their software to use their system locale to
> figure out how their numbers should be displayed according to the current
> locale.

But that's not how people enter numbers in their word processor.

U+2009 also has the wrong line breaking property in the basic Unicode 
line breaking algorithm <https://unicode.org/reports/tr14/>, so it makes 
it quite hard for word processors to do the right thing even if the user 
managers to enter this character.

> Ideally, we should adhere to "official" guidelines. And as has been stated
> before; Duden is de-jure non-normative, but de-facto, it very much is.

That's a historical accident because a government body once referred to 
it as »maßgeblich in allen Zweifelsfällen« (“authoritative if there is 
any doubt”), but that referred to orthography and was before there was 
an official, government-issued list of spellings.  When the official 
word list was finally published in 1996, Duden lost any claims to 
authority (and apparently removed it from their marketing materials).

Regarding number formatting (mainly in typesetting), my 1996 edition of 
the short Duden volume suggests that it is at least partially 
descriptive (»hat sich eingebürgert«).  In this light, the omission of 
the dot as the separator (which was common at the time) looks like a 
mistake.  Despite a decade or more of widespread use of word processors, 
it only has guidelines for typewriting, and does not address the matter 
of breaking spaces in numbers that arise in word processors.

Thanks,
Florian