Inconsistent RBNF Data?

[Cameron Dutro]

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
<http://unicode.org/cldr/trac/browser/tags/release-30-d05/common/rbnf/es.xml#L128>
and v29
<http://unicode.org/cldr/trac/browser/tags/release-29/common/rbnf/es.xml#L128>,
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,

-Cameron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/cldr-users/attachments/20161108/a88af27a/attachment.html>