The problem with that comment is what standard other countries are using. The yard was an imperial unit, based on a bit of metal kept in London, and until say Canada and India went metric, their units were based on that. But in the 80s it was discovered that the length of the bit of metal kept in London, the Imperial yard, had been drifting down over time, and the legislation was based on an estimate of what that length once had been. I suppose the USA, as usual a law unto itself, has done something else, or ignored the problem, but if it has, its measurements will still be based on the Imperial yard. (I do know that their volume measures are different from the Imperial units, but that is not at issue here. Though, does anybody know of another country still using the pound/foot measurement system?)
Best wishes On 2 Jun 2012 at 19:20, NoOp wrote: Send reply to: [email protected] To: [email protected] From: NoOp <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Calc] Feature request: Change default cell width from 2,27cm to 2,50cm Date sent: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 19:20:58 -0700 > On 06/02/2012 11:54 AM, Niall Martin wrote: > > 2.54 cm to the inch, it certainly is by law. It follows from > > legislation in the 80s, I think, which defined the UK yard as 0.9144 > > metres exactly. If you do your arithmetic that leads to 2.54 cm to > > the inch, exactly. > > Well not *exactly* - it depends upon how many decimal places you'd > care to use, which country (most do abide by SI Units - BIPM, NIST > ect), and which law & which reference. > > <http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/appenB.html> > > 1 ft = (1200/3937) m > > 1200/3937 = 0.3048006096 > > =(1200/3937)/12 > = 0.0254000508 > > And of course there is the infamous '0.02540005'... > > For legal and practical purposes, in most cases, 1 inch = 2.54 > centimeters. And yes, I've already responded to Mike regarding this. > However, please keep in mind that your response is country centric, > and most likely refers to: > <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/72/section/1> But that > "legislation" is (again) country specific and goes back to my original > comments: You see the problem? You call it tamatoe, I call it > tomato... > > [OT] Btw I pronounce 'River Thames' as th-ames (same as James) insead > of 'tems/tĕmz/temmz'. I suppose there are several explainations for > this (none in law that I know of), but I quite like this one: > <http://www.proto-english.org/l10.html> Any yes, all of this has been > discussed/debated/departed on the old OOo lists. So my recommendation > is to let it be. > :-) > > > > > > > > Best wishes > > > > On 2 Jun 2012 at 8:07, Mike Scott wrote: > > > > Send reply to: [email protected] Date sent: > > Sat, 02 Jun 2012 08:07:01 +0100 From: Mike Scott > > <[email protected]> To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Calc] Feature request: Change default cell > > width from 2,27cm to 2,50cm > > > >> On 02/06/2012 05:01, NoOp wrote: > >>> On 05/30/2012 03:28 PM, Dwayne Henderson wrote: > >>>> Why is the default cell width in OOo 2,27cm? > >>> > >>> Actually mine (I suppose you are referring to _column_ width) is: > >>> 0.89" which works out to be: > >>> > >>> 2.2606 cm (1" = 2.540005cm) > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> > >> ?? IIRC 1 inch is /exactly/ 2.54cm. I've no idea where your figure > >> might come from! > ... > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For > additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > Niall Martin Phone 0131 4678468 Please reply to: niall<at>rndmartin.cix.co.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
