I agree with Chris on all points. It is true that the sizes of A paper are
irrational but to me only in in the sense that we often talk about rational
or irrational ifp or metric sizes, but A series start with a square meter.
One simply uses the A-designation, not the sizes.
To me A-sizes *are* metric, it is interesting that they are based on the
binary system, the best of two worlds! I loathed having to use inch size
paper in the past with dot matrix printers; I used the 12 inch size.
I looked at this as a dangerous ifp invasion.When the new laser and inkjet
printers allowed people to revert to A sizes, and they did so massively, I
was relieved. Gone are they days when non-metric computer paper was stacked
up high in computer shops. An ifp assault on Europe was repulsed!
And boy, how much do I hate soft metric! Indeed, 568 mL milk cartons are
ridiculous, not a sign that a nation is going metric. We used to label USA
paper as 11 inch* 210 mm! This IS irrational and NOT the meaning of
irrational in the technical sense.
Han
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: woensdag 6 december 2000 21:14
Subject: [USMA:9577] RE: Paper sizes
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2000 12:22:36 -0700, "Dennis Brownridge"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I think we make a huge mistake by pushing ISO paper sizes. It's not an SI
issue at all, and it just inflames people against SI if we promote the
irrational ISO sizes as "metric."
> The ubiquity of A4 paper was one of the most potent signs to me that the
UK was serious about going metric.
>
Just as i don't consider labelling a milk carton '568 ml' as going metric,
neither do I think continued use of 10x8" paper described as 254 x 203 mm
would have been thought of as going metric.
> --
> Chris KEENAN
> UK Metrication: http://www.metric.org.uk/
> UK Correspondent, US Metric Association
>
>
