Inconsistent RBNF Data?
kent.karlsson14 at telia.com
Tue Nov 8 14:56:48 CST 2016
My question is if the corresponding patch should be applied for Portuguese,
which currently use "cento" also for the feminine case.
BUT NOTE THAT: The current version for Spanish has that patch reversed,
according to CLDR Ticket #6461 <http://unicode.org/cldr/trac/ticket/6461>.
Den 2016-11-08 20:27, skrev "Steven R. Loomis" <srl at icu-project.org>:
> It can be helpful give some ICU source code, and which version is being used.
> 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> escribió:
>> 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
>> L128> 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
> CLDR-Users mailing list
> CLDR-Users at unicode.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CLDR-Users