Even if the kyu or Q is a non-decimal part of the mm, it will replace lots and lots of ridiculous jetsam and flotsam. The 0.25 mm is still an acceptable decimal fraction. We should NOT built a system of typographical units on the Q; for everything else the millimeter should be enough. I am 100% in favour af adopting the Q or kyu, the sooner the better and I am also convinced that those who conceived it wanted to get rid of old and US printing units. Having a millimeter divided by 4 is a very small price to pay for a vast improvement. If they had gone to 1/8 then I would have said no as well. If the Q is ifp thinking, then the A-paper sizes are in fact the same as they are a binary series. If the world really made an effort, cooperating closely, it could break the American stranglehold in this area. for instance, developing software and hardware on an SI basis and buying it too. But our computer magazines have told us things like: the inch is used for screens and disks, the CFM is used for the capacity of computer ventilators, the dpi is used for print resolution, etc. If the micro-ounce was used for fineness of print and the US fl.oz for the contents of ink tanks, these magazines would have slavishly informed us about that, instead of asking questions. They never ask WHY such units should be adopted. I wonder whether the letter I sent to my own computer magazine and which I copied in USMA 17782 will be printed in the next issue.
Han ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, 2002-02-05 22:54 Subject: [USMA:17953] Re: Query about measurement!! On Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:58:59 Carter, Baron wrote: kyu: a metric unit of distance used in typography and graphic design. The kyu, originally written Q, is equal to exactly 0.25 millimeter... The thing that baffles me the most about this is why in the world didn't they go with the millimeter (or maybe even the micrometer)??? "Ifp" thinking at work here? Good grief... :-( NOTE: Would it make that much of a difference if they stipulated 100 mcm (sorry, guys, don't have the "micro" symbol here) as this Q instead (if mm is too big or mcm is too small)? I know, the problem here is that we do not have a prefix for 10^-4... :-S This "new Q" (0.1 mm) would have better "resolution" than its suggested 0.25-mm "brother"... Does anyone here know how to contact standards authorities on... "printing matters"? It seems like this bunch requires some serious guidance!... Besides, I strongly believe that it's about time this last holdout of ifp thinking in the computer world get their act together and redefine all fonts and what not in such terms. I'm sure they'd be able to do without this hideous 1/72" crap... I don't honestly think that fonts would "look" substantially different from what they are today, if they cut some decimal places to 0.1 mm precision!... Comments?... Marcus
