Paul Jakma wrote at 10/10/06 22:11:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Ienup Sung wrote:
> 
>> Regarding the optional unit character, in particular, 'K',
>> it seems people tolearate Km, km, and KM for Kilometer/kilometer.
> 
> 
> You mean kilometre. ;)
> 
> There's just one country which does not use the normal SI spelling of 
> 'metre' and that country does not use this unit in its road signage. ;)

Meter is also quite commonly used in many other countries and as a matter
of fact more than metre in many countries.


> 
>> Usually though km is being used and people use a ligature for such 
>> characters like '' in many (Asian) cultures.
> 
> 
> It's pretty simple really, we have a choice between following:
> 
> - the globally recognised symbol set defined by SI, which is familiar to
>    everyone with any level of basic scientific education
> 
> or
> 
> - Non-SI and rediscovering the lovely ambiguities that led to formal,
>    international, standardisation of prefixes and units in the first
>    place.
> 
>    In many cases, I'd bet that local deviations:
> 
>      a1) are made mostly for typographical reasons
> 
>      a2) are mistakes made by people either uneducated in,
>          or forgetful of science, e.g. 'km' (kilometre) versus 'Km'
>          (Kelvin-metre).
> 
>      b) That such deviations typically won't have any local consistency,
>         precisely cause they're just 'mistakes'.
>
>> On the proposed spec which uses 'b' character to indicate radix-2 or
>> radix-10, *BSD uses a flag value and based on that, the output will be
>> 'k' for radix-10 and 'K' for radix-2 IIRC.
> 
> 
> For the 2**(10*n) prefixes, the correct SI-ology is:
> 
> kibi (Ki)
> mebi (Mi)
> gibi (Gi)
> etc.
> 
> --paulj

The point that I am and would like raise is incompatibility issue with
*BSD interfaces. There is no reason for us to be different in terms of
spec including function prototyping if you want to use the same C function
name. If you want to deviate from the *BSD original spec, that's fine but
rather should use other name in that case.

Ienup

Reply via email to