Inconsistent RBNF Data?

Steven R. Loomis srl at
Tue Nov 8 15:18:15 CST 2016

It’s not a reversed patch, it just claims that it should be ciento for 101  and NOT cienta.


El 11/8/16 12:56 PM, "CLDR-Users en nombre de Kent Karlsson" <cldr-users-bounces at en nombre de kent.karlsson14 at> escribió:

Re: Inconsistent RBNF Data?

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 <>.

/Kent K

Den 2016-11-08 20:27, skrev "Steven R. Loomis" <srl at>:

It can be helpful give some ICU source code, and which version is being used.

But probably relevant is – 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 en nombre de cameron at> 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 <>  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 

CLDR-Users mailing list
CLDR-Users at
_______________________________________________ CLDR-Users mailing list CLDR-Users at 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the CLDR-Users mailing list