John:
 
L or l (either is correct), for liter, is not of course an abbreviation; it's a symbol.
 
Interestingly, abbreviations such as ltr are quite good -- as abbreviations! Unfortunately, they're not SI symbols. Strict SI rules call for the use of either full names or the SI-defined symbols.
 
I'd rather everyone followed SI rules to the letter (so to speak), using either full names or valid SI symbols. However, I'd rather see abbreviations (even though I find them quite annoying) than see the persistence of non-metric units.
 
I have, buried in boxes in the garage, some old documents from the Gulf States Cooperation Council, specifying the units to be used in bidding for contracts. They require strict adherence to SI rules. Non-compliant bids are returned for revision (or they could even be ignored). The use of standard units allows non-technical people to perform an initial bid review for conformance to required technical specifications. (They don't have to guess as to whether gms really means g, for example.)
 
If contracts involving units of measure were not legally enforceable unless all technical specifications were in correct SI units (avoidance of possible ambiguity being the justification for such a rule), that might lead to better practices (certainly within the contract documents themselves), which might eventually find their way into marketing and sales materials, and into advertising.

Bill Potts, CMS
Roseville, CA
http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]

 
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of john mercer
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 12:06
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:31672] abreeveations

I was on a U K web site and they were using the agreeveation LTR for liter. They were using this abreeveation for the tank volume on the pressure washer and the fuel tank volume on the engine. Isn't the only abreeveation for liter in SI l? John    

Reply via email to