Inconsistent RBNF Data?

[Steven R. Loomis]

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

But probably relevant is http://unicode.org/cldr/trac/changeset/9025 – perhaps you are comparing an ICU older than this commit?

-s 

El 11/8/16 10:43 AM, "CLDR-Users en nombre de Cameron Dutro" <cldr-users-bounces at unicode.org en nombre de cameron at lumoslabs.com> 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,

-Cameron
_______________________________________________ CLDR-Users mailing list CLDR-Users at unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/cldr-users 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/cldr-users/attachments/20161108/d771569a/attachment.html>