Jim Elwell wrote in USMA 20579: >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 I vote for 100x200x300mm. "x" means multiplication. "/" and ":" both mean division. I hesitate to suggest "1x2x3dm" Joseph B.Reid 17 Glebe Road West Toronto M5P 1C8 Tel. 416 486-6071
