From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13148 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2014 19:58:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-locales-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-locales-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 13088 invoked by uid 89); 1 Jul 2014 19:58:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_05,KAM_LIVE,RDNS_DYNAMIC,URI_BLOGSPOT autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: rap.rap.dk Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 19:58:00 -0000 From: Keld Simonsen To: myllynen at redhat dot com Cc: libc-locales@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [Bug localedata/12349] Incorrect thousands separator and first weekday for eu_ES locale Message-ID: <20140701195817.GA7837@rap.rap.dk> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SW-Source: 2014-q3/txt/msg00041.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 09:11:46AM +0000, myllynen at redhat dot com wrote: > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12349 > > Marko Myllynen changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CC| |myllynen at redhat dot com > > --- Comment #10 from Marko Myllynen --- > Perhaps there are certain locales where glibc is better maintained but in > general CLDR looks to have more experts involved. For example, in some cases > there are national initiatives which work directly with CLDR. This is not > surprising given the vendor independent nature of CLDR. Now that Microsoft has > also joined CLDR [1] as contributing partner (alongside with Google, IBM, and > others) it certainly looks like CLDR has notable momentum and should not be > ignored. > > 1) > http://unicode-inc.blogspot.com/2014/05/cldr-v26-open-for-data-submission.html Yes, we should not ignore CLDR. But there are also national initiatives that work directly with ISO on their national conventions, where they do not work directly with CLDR. CLDR is an American initiative and is very much dominated by US companies, as you also indicate. Best regards keld