I'm a bit concerned that the solution to metricating cooking in the U.S. will be to define a standard "metric" cup (probably 250 ml) and metric spoon sizes (5 and 15 ml) and continue to specify recipes with units like 1/3 cup or 2 tablespoons. Measuring anything outside the standard sizes requires figuring out what combination of spoons and cups will get you close enough to what you want, e.g., "3 tablespoons plus a teaspoon."
So the point of my question was, will one be able to measure any arbitrary volume in ml, or would you still be using some backward-compatible cup redefinition? I think such a backward-compatible approach is the wrong way to go. I suggest that all recipes should give pure, hard metric quantities, e.g., grams and ml. No cups, no fractions, no teaspoons, no tablespoons. Measuring cups and measuring spoons should be labeled exclusively in ml. If I see "15 ml salt" then I would know to use my 15 ml spoon to measure it. The U.S. needs a guiding hand to help metricate the thousands of activities in life and commerce that involve measurement. Carefully determine the BEST ways to measure and specify things for each activity, publish standards, ensure that the standards are evenly applied, etc. Cooking is just one of the thousands of activities that will suffer from the lack of a guiding hand. John On Monday 29 September 2003 03:56, Terry Simpson wrote: > John S. Ward wrote: > >If you want to measure dry ingredients by volume, how would you do it? > > I don't understand why you ask the question. I would measure 180 ml in my > measuring jug.
