bh & bho macro relationship

[Mark Davis ☕️ via CLDR-Users]

The likely subtags are built to allow a certain degree of flexibility for
the implementations. That is, they don't normalize the source, but rather
maintain the "denormalizations". The most prominent example is:

<likelySubtag from="iw" to="iw_Hebr_IL"/>

<!--{ Hebrew; ?; ? } => { Hebrew; Hebrew; Israel }-->

<likelySubtag from="he" to="he_Hebr_IL"/>

<!--{ Hebrew; ?; ? } => { Hebrew; Hebrew; Israel }-->

Both are used, so that an implementation that uses 'iw' as the canonical
form (eg Java) can still use the data. Now, we don't include all the
possible denormalized forms, but we do include the ones that have in some
way been used in that fashion.

Most of the other data in CLDR doesn't have to have both forms, because it
doesn't contain language tags both in the 'input' and the 'output'.

Make sense?

Mark

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Martin Hosken via CLDR-Users <
cldr-users at unicode.org> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> bho is a macro language to which bh maps. But bho has a likely subtags
> entry of bho-Deva-IN, while bh has a likely subtags entry of bh-Kthi-IN. Is
> this OK? It makes for interesting folding issues and could well get some
> wrong results depending on how the tag to CLDR id works.
>
> On that, if anyone is up for answering the en-US question, could they then
> explain what happens to en-Latn-US through the same process.
>
> TIA,
> Yours,
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180323/eb282de3/attachment.html>