Hi,
think such a feature request is unnecessary and I cannot see any
advantage changing this.
If someone want to have this, he can create a standard template.
Regards
Am 03.06.2012 08:12, schrieb Niall Martin:
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]
--
PGP Schlüssel: 311D1055
http://keyserver.pgp.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
