Pat had made an assumption that 2 L drink bottles are ONLY marked as 2 L. However, FPLA requires marking Customary net contents as well (until or unless permissive-metric-only passes). The implication of Pat's assumption was that conversions are not needed, but in fact, conversions are mandated by FPLA. People certainly think of it only as a rounded metric value, but the law is the law.
The original note chain started because i had pointed out some minor errors in the use of underlining to denote exact and approximate conversions in Appendix C. All the constants are "good enough" as stated, but it is sometimes useful to know which are exact and therefore effectively a definition, vs rounded. There are a few errors, in both directions, of the underline attribute, and some which are rounded could be exact with no more digits than are used in other constants in the section. Or, the short answer is "forget about it." Both are fairly technical errors of no real importance. ________________________________ From: Bill Hooper <[email protected]> To: Pat Naughtin <[email protected]>; John M. Steele <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, November 29, 2010 5:32:56 AM Subject: Re: [USMA:48889] Re: NIST Handbook 44, Appendix C Pat and John, What is the error to which you refer? (I've haven't been checking my email recently and may have missed the answer if it was in some other messages.) Bill Hooper On Nov 18 , at 6:39 PM, Pat Naughtin wrote: Dear John, > > >Thanks for pointing out my error on the two litre bottle labels. > > >Pat naughtin >Geelong, Australia > > >On 2010/11/19, at 07:57 , John M. Steele wrote: > >Pat, >> >> >>*On 2 L drink bottles, this is factually incorrect. ... However, the 2 L >>bottle is a good example where the public thinks 2 L and not the cumbersome 2 >>QT >>3.6 FL OZ (67.6 FL OZ) which is also legally required.
