Thanks, Bill. I didn't have my old copy of SI 10 (1997) handy at my campus office. The 2002 issue of SI 10 doesn't even mention ANSI/IEEE 268 or ASTM E 380 anymore.
Matt, when you encounter invocation of external standards in MIL-SPECs, you have to read them carefully. Usually, the MIL-SPEC allows for subsequent substitution of editions that supersede the edition cited in the MIL-SPEC. However, that is not always the case. By the way, a newly proposed revised standard is about to be sent to ballot. It is IEEE P260.1, "Standard Letter Symbols for Units of Measurement", and it does parenthetically indicate that IEEE/ASTM SI 10-2002 supersedes ANSI/IEEE 268 and ASTM E 380. The portions that folks here might be most interested in are clause 6, "Unit symbols to be used with limited character Sets", and Annex A, "Notation for expressing the reference of a level". The latter pertains to the matter recently discussed by John and I regarding bels (and by extension napiers). I would anticpate the completion of balloting to be within the next several weeks. Barring significant technical comments or failure on the ballot, the standard should be approved and published this summer. Jim Bill Potts wrote: > > I just took another look at my IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997. Under the document > number, it says, parenthetically, Revision and Redesignation of ANSI/IEEE > Std 268-1992 and ASTM E 380. > > So, you can take it from that that IEEE 268 is obsolete. > > Bill Potts, CMS > Roseville, CA > http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Behalf Of Bill Potts > >Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 09:27 > >To: U.S. Metric Association > >Subject: [USMA:24915] RE: IEEE 268 vs. IEEE/ASTM SI 10 > > > > > >I don't have a copy of IEEE 268. However, as far as I can tell, it provides > >implementation guidance. It's an 80-page document. I believe the latest > >issue is dated 1992. > > > >IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997, on the other hand, defines SI units, conversion from > >traditional units, and style. It's 66 pages. > > > >Someone else may be able to give you a more definitive answer. > > > >Bill Potts, CMS > >Roseville, CA > >http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] > >.. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Behalf Of > >Matthew Zotter > >Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 03:03 > >To: U.S. Metric Association > >Subject: [USMA:24914] IEEE 268 vs. IEEE/ASTM SI 10 > > > > > >2003 FEB 21 FRI > > > >How does IEEE 268 differ from IEEE/ASTM SI 10? > >When does IEEE/ASTM SI 10 come up with their next revision. > >Thank you for your time. > > > >Sincerely, > >Matthew Zotter > >SC, USA > > -- Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!" James R. Frysinger, LCAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/ 10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charleston, SC 29407 phone: 843.225.6789
