James R. Frysinger wrote (edited for brevity): >> 100/200/300mm > > I don't see those as being sufficiently simpler than writing > 100 mm x 200 mm x 300 mm to inspire me to diverge from clear > indications. And the space savings is hardly stunning, in my > opinion. If you need brevity, perhaps you could say something > like "All dimensions given are in millimeters." > or > "Dimensions (mm): 100 x 200 x 300" > or > "Dim (mm): 100 x 200 x 300" > >> (3) Regardless of what you think of my examples above, I can say this: >> those of us in commerce have practical limitations that REQUIRE >> brevity in such things. As people knowledgeable about proper metric, >> us USMA types can either provide means for brevity, or people will >> develop them ad-hoc. > > That's what the consensus process is for. Submit your proposals to the > owners of the standards that you use.
The above dialog makes me think I was not clear on the reason for the need for brevity, so I'll try again: We use accounting/manufacturing software that limits part descriptions to 40 characters (a fairly common, if no longer justified, limitation). We have thousands of parts. This means: (1) We MUST limit descriptions to 40 characters -- that's all our software allows. (2) "100 mm x 200 mm x 300 mm" vs "100x200x300mm" is 24 vs 13 characters. When you are limited to only 40, this is a significant improvement. The 40 characters is not just for the dimensions, but for the entire part description. For example, try writing this in 40 characters, without dropping any of the information: "box, shipping, white, 1-ply, 200 mm x 300 mm x 500 mm" (3) The notations "Dim (mm): ..." are fine for drawings (we use it on ours), but not for part descriptions where we use a variety of units of measure. (4) We MUST do this RIGHT NOW to run our business -- no waiting on standards committees. I don't want to trample on standards and conventions any more than necessary, but at times like this I feel we have no choice. So, with all due respect Jim F., I ask again: What would any of you consider an acceptable (ok ... least unacceptable) way of abbreviating the dimensional notation in question, if you do not like the one we use (i.e., 100x200x300mm)? We WILL abbreviate over the preferred notation (we have no other choice), so I'm offering an opportunity to suggest options that do minimal damage to the integrity of the SI system, standards and recommended practices. My earlier post showed a version I liked: 100/200/300mm but then I realized that "/" can be taken for division, so my best idea at this time is: 100:200:300mm Again, we MUST abbreviate, so give me your ideas! Jim Elwell, CAMS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
