From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 94448 invoked by alias); 18 May 2019 04:22:32 -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 94437 invoked by uid 89); 18 May 2019 04:22:32 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=government, swiss, resident, HX-Languages-Length:879 X-HELO: mail-qt1-f182.google.com Return-Path: Subject: Re: Question regarding LC_MONETARY definitions for fr_CH and de_CH To: Jakob Runge , libc-locales@sourceware.org References: From: Carlos O'Donell Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 May 2019 04:22:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2019-q2/txt/msg00051.txt.bz2 On 5/17/19 7:12 PM, Jakob Runge wrote: > If my observations are correct it would seem to me that the > 'p_cs_precedes' and 'n_cs_precedes' for fr_CH should be adjusted. > > I'd love to read confirmation or correction on this. The current data in fr_CH was contributed by Keld Simonsen, and you should reach out to him also to discuss this issue. In general glibc tries to match published government standards about language locales and particularly for number formats. Quoting that CLDR is different is not a good justification. Yes, we are trying hard to harmonize the glibc locales with CLDR since it avoids confusion. However, we also need to understand which database has it right, and correct the other. Are you a Swiss resident? Do you have experience with the locale in question? -- Cheers, Carlos.