Inconsistent number format with compact-short and compact long for en-IN

[aaron-fe]

As mentioned in #432,

Take 100,000 as an example, should we consistently format it to Indian numbering system with compact-short and compact-long for en-IN, while we already do it consistently for hi-IN?

notation	compactDisplay	hi-IN	en-IN (actual)	en-IN (expected)
compact	short	1 लाख	1L	1L
compact	long	1 लाख	100 thousand	1 lakh

I'm not from India, but could you kindly confirm if this is a bug? Thank you! ❤️

[aaron-fe]

Seems I should create a ticket in CLDR Jira, but I don't have a Jira account.

And they only customized the short format, but I feel they should have fixed both, https://unicode-org.atlassian.net/browse/CLDR-13660?focusedCommentId=160216

[sffc]

This is a CLDR issue, not an ECMA-402 issue. It appears that CLDR previously had these translations, but they were removed by translators in CLDR 40. I opened a ticket to check whether this was intentional or not, and whether we should add them back: https://unicode-org.atlassian.net/browse/CLDR-18876

[sffc]

CLDR Pull Request: unicode-org/cldr#4949

If it lands in the upcoming CLDR 48 release, the behavior should be reflected in browsers sometime later this year.

[aaron-fe]

Thank you all, I think we can close the ticket now.