Inconsistent RBNF Data?

Wed Nov 9 11:43:25 CST 2016

Cameron,
 Thanks for following up!

Cc George…

Steven

El 11/9/16 9:11 AM, "CLDR-Users en nombre de Cameron Dutro" <cldr-users-bounces at unicode.org en nombre de cameron at lumoslabs.com> escribió:

Hey Steven et al.,

This turned out to be my fault. I had two different versions of ICU on my classpath, one recent and one quite old. I thought the newer one was loaded but the older one took precedence because it occurred earlier in the classpath and caused my script to generate invalid test cases.

As you suggested I wrote a small bit of Java code to try and reproduce the problem, which to my surprise produced the correct result.

Apologies for dragging everyone into this! Thank you all for your help :)

-Cameron

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Steven R. Loomis <srl at icu-project.org> wrote:
So- can you reproduce the issue with ICU4C or ICU4J of a certain version? 

There’s an API to request the CLDR version.  In ICU4C you can use the ‘icuinfo’ app  or ulocdata_getCLDRVersion(), in J you can do ‘java –jar icu4j.jar’ or LocaleData.getCLDRVersion()

El 11/8/16 12:20 PM, "CLDR-Users en nombre de Cameron Dutro" <cldr-users-bounces at unicode.org en nombre de cameron at lumoslabs.com> escribió:

Ah right, I forgot to mention the version of ICU. I'm using v57.1 which I thought was the version that corresponds to CLDR v29.

The source code is actually Ruby code (running on JRuby). You can see the code in question here.

Steven, it looks like that changeset was submitted 3 years ago, but isn't reflected in v29 or v30 of CLDR (but appears to have made it into ICU somehow).

Thanks for your help!

-Cameron

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Steven R. Loomis <srl at icu-project.org> wrote:
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.orghttp://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/cldr-users

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

_______________________________________________ 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/20161109/05bb0207/attachment.html>