Another reason is just thet if your kbd does not have � [libra] you
have to use L. for it (yes, a point is allowed in this case) .
On 20 Nov 2000, at 15:12, Joseph B. Reid wrote:
> Adrian Jadic asked in USMA 9252
>
> >Does anyone know what is the story behind this capitalization?
> >I know that the SI tolerates the use of capital L for liter but I see more
> >and more attempts to use capital letters for metric abbreviations in the US.
> >Too many packages display the milliliter as a megaliter; the sport events
> >are in KM rather than km (that is when they are not just in K).
> >
> >In SI, capitals are used only for units that represent a proper name (Joule,
> >Ampere, Hertz etc.). Is there an objective reason for using L instead of l
> >in North America?
>
>
> The reason for using L as the symbol for litre is simple; it is because
> there is very little visual difference between one "1" and litre "l". For
> example, does 5.3l mean 5.3 litres or pure number 5.31? Note that in UK
> the common practice is to omit the space between the last digit of a number
> and the unit symbol. I believe that the practice of using L as the symbol
> for litre originated in Australia and was picked up by USA and Canada. The
> 16th Conf�rence g�n�rale des poids et mesures, 1979,
> "*decides*, as an exception, to adopt the two symbols l and L as symbols to
> be used for the litre,
> "*considering* further that in the future only one of these two symbols
> should be retained,
> "*invites* the CIPM to follow the development of the use of these two
> symbols and to give the 18th CGPM its opinion as to the possibility of
> suppressing one of them."
>
> Until now the CIPM has not reached a decision on this matter.
>
Leonardo Boselli
nucleo informatico e telematico
Dipartimento Ingegneria Civile
Universita` di Firenze
V. S. Marta 3 - I-50139 Firenze
tel +39()0554796431 fax +39()055495333
http://www.dicea.unifi.it/~leo
