Inconsistent RBNF Data?
cameron at lumoslabs.com
Tue Nov 8 14:20:13 CST 2016
Ah right, I forgot to mention the version of ICU. I'm using v57.1 which I
thought was the version that corresponds to CLDR v29.
The source code is actually Ruby code (running on JRuby). You can see the
code in question here
Steven, it looks like that changeset was submitted 3 years ago, but isn't
reflected in v29 or v30 of CLDR (but appears to have made it into ICU
Thanks for your help!
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Steven R. Loomis <srl at icu-project.org>
> It can be helpful give some ICU source code, and which version is being
> But probably relevant is http://unicode.org/cldr/trac/changeset/9025 –
> perhaps you are comparing an ICU older than this commit?
> El 11/8/16 10:43 AM, "CLDR-Users en nombre de Cameron Dutro" <
> cldr-users-bounces at unicode.org en nombre de cameron at lumoslabs.com>
> Hey everyone,
> I'm running into a strange inconsistency between ICU's output and the data
> available in CLDR when formatting numbers using RBNF rules.
> One specific example is the spellout-cardinal-feminine rule set in
> Spanish. In CLDR v30
> and v29
> the rule for 101 is "ciento" which is incorrect for the feminine case. ICU
> however formats feminine spellouts correctly by using "cienta."
> Where in the world is ICU getting its data? Why does it appear as if ICU
> isn't actually using the currently available CLDR data?
> Thanks for your help,
> _______________________________________________ CLDR-Users mailing list
> CLDR-Users at unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/cldr-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CLDR-Users