From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 83532 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2019 16:57:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 83523 invoked by uid 89); 4 Dec 2019 16:57:17 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_2,KAM_SHORT,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=French, french, UD:cz, republic X-HELO: mx1.suse.de Subject: Re: Locales: Thousands separator From: Stanislav Brabec To: Marko Myllynen , GNU C Library Cc: Mike Fabian , Carlos O'Donell References: <5e0e7fec-59b1-8af9-5711-4509975e8f29@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1b931a1c-8646-960a-c51e-8f65a7f384f1@suse.cz> Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 16:57:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2019-12/txt/msg00153.txt.bz2 On 06/20 2018 at 05:20 PM Stanislav Brabec wrote: > Marko Myllynen wrote: >> Commit 70a6707 [1] changed many locales to use U+202F NARROW NO-BREAK >> SPACE (NNBSP) as the thousands separator instead of U+00A0 NO-BREAK >> SPACE (NBSP). The patch submission nor the follow-up discussion [2] did >> not cite any standards or references as rationale for this change. ... >> I have been under impression that the long-term plan for glibc locales >> would be to use CLDR data as source to the extent possible so this >> change would seem to be at odds with that plan. I found no indications >> from CLDR Trac that CLDR would be switching to NNBSP. This inconsistency >> also presents a dilemma for keymap definitions when there is only one >> feasible key combination available for producing non-breaking space: >> which variant to choose, the glibc one or the CLDR one. >> >> Given the considerations above, what do the glibc maintainers think >> about the current situation, is this inconsistency seen as an issue? > > When I proposed this change, I was not aware of use of CLDR. > > Created ticket now: > https://unicode.org/cldr/trac/ticket/11217 > CLDR decided to accept the NNBSP approach. In the CLDR version 36, they decided to use French as a NNBSP trial: https://www.unicode.org/cldr/charts/36/by_type/numbers.symbols.html#a1ef41eaeb6982d -- Best Regards / S pozdravem, Stanislav Brabec software developer --------------------------------------------------------------------- SUSE LINUX, s. r. o. e-mail: sbrabec@suse.com Křižíkova 148/34 (Corso IIa) tel: +420 284 084 060 186 00 Praha 8-Karlín fax: +420 284 084 001 Czech Republic http://www.suse.cz/ PGP: 830B 40D5 9E05 35D8 5E27 6FA3 717C 209F A04F CD76