2002-02-07 Time to upgrade our software.
Think of upgrading as switching from FFU to SI. For µ, I use the IBM code page of alt-230 or the Windows Character Map symbol of alt-0181 (µ). Both work. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, 2002-02-07 11:14 Subject: [USMA:18013] Re: Q discussion > Sorry, guys, that I surmised that Jim's approach to symbols would have worked. I was expecting that the micrometer would print fine, but it came as '5m' instead. Oh, well... Alright... I'll compromise here and accept to use 'um' from now on instead, so as to please most here... :-(........... :-) > > Marcus > > On Thu, 07 Feb 2002 07:58:16 > Ma Be wrote: > >My dearest friend, Han, please see my comments below. > > > >On Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:46:29 > > Han Maenen wrote: > >>I would not propose a decimal series of paper formats as there is none and > >>it would be impractical in this specific case. It is a fact that A paper > >>sizes divide by progressive halving. > > > >You're right, in this particular case what's happening is a mathematical reality. If one wants to rationalize paper size there just is no way to avoid the inverse of the square root of two "factor" (or the so-called "golden factor") for that purpose. However, the rationality has already been developed into the system by defining that the start of the A series sizes would be a neat 1 square meter! > > > >But the above is a different kind of problem compared to the Q discussion though. One thing is to allow mathematical/algebraic rules, etc, *having the SI as the backbone of presenting values*, define how products should be developed and quite another to use a non-SI *size itself* for that purpose! More on this below. > > > >> I support the Q and A sizes. > >>As for the Q: there is no proposal for any other non-decimal subdivion at > >>all. > > > >True, but please consider this, Han. If one allows the use of an "exception to the rule" one would be giving the enemy the ammunition they need to shoot down the SI system as a whole as flawed by saying: Aha! There's an application where one can simply not work with a decimal framework! Here SIists must recognize that the mm or 5m won't cut it! I hope you can see, Han, from a *principle*'s point-of-view that we cannot allow such... "compromises". Now, please understand that I'm discussing *matters of principle* here! > > > >I understand very well where you're coming from, and can sympathize with your position well-stated below (between '*...*'). It's a reasonable one indeed, so, please don't take me wrong on this, my dear friend. But I'd rather not give ANY room for ifpists to feed on! We must be able to counteract their arguments by showing that a "size" of 0.1 mm would address the issue perfectly well and for once and for all (if they can demonstrate unequivocally that mm or 5m wouldn't cut it)! It then would be up to the typographers' authorities to fix this mess by adopting it. And here, I wouldn't mind their using Q as a name for this (or another one, as using the same name may create confusion), as opposed to making a request before BIPM or CGPM for the creation of another prefix. > > > >> Under the proposal those who need finer resolutions can go to 0.1 or > >>any other decimal part of a millimeter. See Markus Kuhn's website. > >>And again, *if I see the trash the Q is to replace, then this infraction of > >>SI rules in a very specific field is a small price to pay*. > >>However, CGPM should not officially sanction the Q, there it should always > >>remain '0.25 mm'. > > > >Excellent. I must concur with you on this one. Q must remain an "industrial thing", if it comes to that. > > > >>A possiblility is, stop calling it a Q, refer to a 0.25 mm resolution, that > >>will > >>eliminate a unit or prefix name. > > > >And by doing the above values would refer directly to the mm, which would be the "easier" solution. Only problem is how can the software industry accommodate values that would require potentially up to 6 characters to represent!... At least with the 0.1 mm "Q" that would drop to 4 characters (they may not mind this extra character - they currently use 3, if I'm not mistaken). > > > >> It is possible that the typographic > >>industry really > >>needs this 0.25 mm resolution for the bulk of printing. > >> > >Fine, if they do, then the solution is clear, let's lobby them for the adoption of 0.1 mm instead. > > > >Marcus > > > > > >Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably > >Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. > >Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com > > > > > > > Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably > Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. > Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com >
