<i18n dev> [8] Review request for JEP 127: Improve Locale Data Packaging and Adopt Unicode CLDR Data

[Steven R. Loomis]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:37 AM, Masayoshi Okutsu <
masayoshi.okutsu at oracle.com> wrote:

> On 8/14/2012 2:25 PM, Steven R. Loomis wrote:
>
>> Naoto,
>>   okay, thought I was done for the night, but just two more things..
>>
>> - again on the "talk to us" category.. Sun already wrote one LDML
>> converter, and contributed to another. They're part of the CLDR toolset
>> and
>> work with OOo and Solaris data.
>>
>> - also, it appears that the new converter doesn't handle aliases at all,
>> or
>> parentLocales. You're guaranteed to get the wrong answer.
>>
>> - Some of the processing (such as for Norwegian) and in other places seems
>> to be very .. hardcoded and fragile.
>>
>
> These are limitations of the existing parser. I've briefly checked the
> output, but I will need to work on the parser more.
> Please note that we use the existing JRE classes (runtime) for CLDR
> support, not ICU4J. My understanding is that CLDR is after all the data
> part of ICU. A lot of adjustments need to be made to use the JRE classes.


No, that is not correct. First,  CLDR is consumed by a number of other
packages, besides ICU, including most recently TwitterCLDR.  ICU is used in
the development of CLDR.
You could take the opportunity to inflence CLDR to benefit the JRE by
providing input into the CLDR process.

Also, I was not referring to using the ICU data generator ( in
org.unicode.cldr.icu ) but the parser and utility, ( org.unicode.cldr.util
 - particularly, CLDRFile ).


>
>  - Are you aware of the fact that CLDR 22 is nearly released?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>    Has there been
>> any testing with the interim data, or any plans to do so?
>>
>
> Currently we have no plan to use 22 in JDK 8. There are still tons of work
> to finish for JDK 8, including fixing ancient bugs.


It's ironic and unfortunate timing, to independently pull in 21 at this
point. The data input in 21 was from the 2.0 release, ( 2011-May-25 ),
which by 2013 will be two years old.


>  I think the summary again is, talk to us.  Where "us" is the CLDR
>> technical
>> committee.
>>
>
> Thanks for the suggestion, but do you mean it's risky to create something
> from the spec and its implementation (data)?


It's not an unacceptable risk, but it may be an unnecessary one to work in
isolation. The parser does not match the spec in a number of areas. As I
noted, I myself have been a bit absent from these discussions, both
physically and in catching up on the i18n-dev mail digests. But I hope that
more conversation will be mutually beneficial.

Steven