Inconsistent RBNF Data?

[Rafael Xavier]

>
> That's not quite true for Portuguese - the forms are a bit different. I
> had a quick look at the RBNF though and it looks correct there.
>
> http://unicode.org/cldr/trac/browser/tags/release-30-d05/
> common/rbnf/pt.xml#L78
>

+1 confirming existing RBNF for pt is correct (as a native Portuguese
speaker and [1]).

1:
http://veja.abril.com.br/blog/sobre-palavras/consultorio/duzentas-mil-pessoas-ou-duzentos-mil-pessoas/

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Fòram na Gàidhlig <fios at foramnagaidhlig.net
> wrote:

> Sgrìobh Kent Karlsson na leanas 09/11/2016 aig 21:23:
> > Right, I misread.
> >
> > I note that both Spanish and Portuguese has "ciento" as corrections to
> > the "-feminine" cases.
>
> That's not quite true for Portuguese - the forms are a bit different. I
> had a quick look at the RBNF though and it looks correct there.
>
> http://unicode.org/cldr/trac/browser/tags/release-30-d05/
> common/rbnf/pt.xml#L78
> _______________________________________________
> CLDR-Users mailing list
> CLDR-Users at unicode.org
> http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/cldr-users
>



-- 
+55 (16) 98138-1583, skype: rxaviers
http://rafael.xavier.blog.br
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/cldr-users/attachments/20161110/87170d83/attachment.html>