On Friday 20 February 2004 19:42, Gavin Young wrote: > I guess that means that we should also use the cubic decimeter term for > liquid measure (such as in cooking and in reference to gasoline fuel) as > well as for dry capacity. I'm glad to see that we no longer need the > redundant term of liter, though I will still likely use it for a while.
Insisting on using "cubic decimeter" instead of liter serves little or no useful purpose and will only generate resistance to metrication. Why say "cubic decimeter" when you could just say "quart?" Liters have some really nice features. Practically everyone world-wide is familiar with liters, even in the U.S. Gasoline and beverages are sold by the liter nearly everywhere in the world. I almost never see "cubic decimeter" outside this list. It's also simpler to add prefixes directly to liter. A cubic km is 1 000 000 000 times bigger than a cubic meter, which may confuse those learning that "kilo" means thousand.
