Jim Elwell wrote:
....
> Jim, you wrote a very thorough and educational response. I understand your
> comment now that the space is not required.
Thank you! Perhaps I should post something to this effect on my web
pages, perhaps at the top of my page at
http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj/neatplaces.htm
to help readers put the various documents into perspective.
> However, I also see something interesting between the lines. You refer in
> several places to the legal aspects of these documents, what is legally
> binding, etc. It seems to me that, from a practical legal standpoint, the
> question of this space is really a non-issue.
>
> By this I mean that I cannot conceive of a circumstance in commerce where
> this space (or lack thereof) would raise any kind of legal or contractual
> issue.
I personally think that the only time a space could become an issue is
if it causes confusion on the specified quantity. That is most likely to
happen with a quantity in liters where a lowercase ell (l) is used as
the unit symbol and no space is provided, causing that unit symbol to be
take as a one (1). Of course, then, the reasonable person would then
ask, "What are the units?" So, yes, I doubt that the space will find its
way into case law, at least in the United States.
> I personally work with contracts and lawyers and vendors and customers
> (including numerous government customers) every day. Many of these
> contracts reference numerous MIL, IPC, SAE and other standards. And there
> is absolutely no doubt that we frequently design and deliver products that
> violate some obscure clause somewhere in some of these documents. There is
> also no doubt that these reams of paper frequently include their own
> contradictions, which ensure such violations take place.
And that's the truth! Harmonization of standards (internally and
externally) is a monumental chore. I used to think that complying with
multiple standards was a Herculean task and then I joined some standards
boards. Hercules was loafing.
> But who cares? If the violated clause were of the nature of "space between
> a number and a unit of measure," no one in the real world would do more
> than point out if someone were in error. No one who has a deadline to meet
> or customer to make happy is going to put any time into such a triviality
> as this space. The same thing applies to whether we use a true "mu" (�) or
> the letter "u" is used in a document. And probably a lot of other "nit
> picky" rules.
Yep.
> I do not mean to imply that we should not have such rules, only that we
> shouldn't over-emphasize how critical they are in day-to-day
> contractual/legal situations.
Right again, in my book. I don't give a hoot if a person spells it as
"metre" instead of "meter" in a U.S. document as long as they don't
spell it "yard". There are mortal sins and there are venial sins.
That's why I try to keep my perspective about the use of "weight" in
commerce where a physicist would use "mass". One must venture beyond the
ivied walls of academe and live in the real world to maintain
credibility with mortal humans. Of course that distinction must be made
where appropriate, but you won't see me trying to convince the butcher
at Kroger's to change his labels.
I like the way you put your last statement, Jim!
Jim
--
Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!"
James R. Frysinger, CAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/
10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charleston, SC 29407 phone/FAX: 843.225.6789
