This is one case where I could not object to ifp usage. All these inch sizes are part of a *non-metric* standard, they are measurement sensitive, in my opinion using them in this case was justified. Converting them gives horrible metric values, which of course is deadly for any metrication effort. Soft metric, yuk, if necessary I prefer rational ifp to that when the sizes are measurement sensitive. On the other hand, it not good at all to call a large container a 40 foot container in metric nations; we should call them 12 m containers. Thank goodness, these inch-based continuous continuous paper sizes are on the way out and metric nations have massively reverted to A4 sizes. Gone has the time when boxes of 11 and 12 inch continuous paper were stacked high in our computer shops.
Han ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph B. Reid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, 2002-11-13 21:22 Subject: [USMA:23340] Re: Another point of order... > Ms Be wrote in USMA 23328; > > > >Folks, this is the problem. We MUST, absolutely *MUST* set the example. Please forgive me for saying this (and with all due respect) but it's UTTERLY ***UNACCEPTABLE*** that we, *metric supporters* OURSELVES, speak the very "language" we want to rid the world of. Please, P-L-E-A-S-E, no more of ' 2" ', ' 2 3/4" ', ' 1/2 inch ', ' 12 inches ', etc, *exclusively*! What is this??? Marcus I apologize for my solecism. I want to withdraw my previous posting and replace it with: > A popular size of note paper is ISO size A4, 210 mm by 297 mm. Since the universal fanfold computer printer paper spaces its sprocket holes at 12.7 mm intervals, it is usual to print on continuous paper with 304.8 mm vertically between folds. Joseph B. Reid 7 Glebe Road West Toronto M5P 1C8 Telephone 416-486-6071
