Comment # 2 on bug 1205236 from Jan Engelhardt

��������������� looks familiar.

"
 * When the bytes of a UTF-8 encoded file are interpreted as indexes into the
 * cp1252 table or as indexes into the Unicode table, and the resulting
 * characters be stored as UTF-8 again, mojibake sequences like ���������������<U+009D> can
 * appear.
"
 ���������https://inai.de/2010/03/07 linking decode_mojibake_1252.c

So it would appear ICU now emits a U+202F when being asked to generate the text
representation of a timestamp. With my typography hat on, that seems a legit
thing to want to do.

origin https://github.com/unicode-org/icu
commit 64b35481263ac4df37a28a9c549553ecc9710db2
->
origin https://github.com/unicode-org/cldr
commit a83026ab8c8fa6ed88f1047c4d0c6089f88b7e5d
->
https://github.com/unicode-org/cldr/pull/2001


The nodejs tests are.. flawed in the sense there is no one correct answer to
how localized timestamp strings should look like.