On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Gabriel Hurley <[email protected]> wrote: > Though technically accurate, I would say it goes against the rest of the > purpose of that filter: "human readable". > And though technically inaccurate, everyone from hard drive manufacturers to > major web companies use KB, MB, etc. to represent filesizes. I'd argue that > it's become a de facto (if inaccurate) standard. The "why is my hard drive X > GB less than what it said on the box" comes up all the time thanks to this > wonderful trick of marketing. > So while you are technically correct (and that is the best kind of correct), > my money's on keeping the filter as it is. Everyone else is more than free > to disagree. :-)
You won't see me disagreeing. +1 to keeping as is. Until I start seeing kibibyte being used in the New York Times, or the prefered usage in the Chicago Manual of Style, the kibibyte is little more to me than an intriguing expression of pedantry. Yes, the existing usage is confusing and ambiguous. We don't fix that by picking new and relatively unknown terminology. Yours, Russ Magee %-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
