Personally, I think this is much ado about an extremely small matter.
The CIPM is currently much more involved with issues dealing with
proposed new definitions for the SI base units, new mises en pratique,
harmonization matters, OIML issues, and so forth. Take a look at the
article of mine published by Metric Today this last year on the work
that has been done at the BIPM, for instance.
I know of no instances where the acceptability of either case for the
liter symbol has caused any problems. Let's heed the old motto: "If it
ain't broke, don't fix it."
Jim
On 2010-12-06 1618, [email protected] wrote:
John (Steel),
Note that the French original of the BIPM Brochure on SI (8th Edition), in Footnote (f) of Table 6,
discusses the symbol "l" first and then the symbol "L" secondly as an
alternative. There is no mention of the preference stated in NIST SP 330 for use in the USA.
Thus, the BIPM documentation is mixed, L first in Table 6, but "l" first in the
Footnote. Which should be determinative? The Table listing L followed by l or the
Footnote discussing l first followed by authorizing L as an alternative?
It would be less confusing if the CIPM would implement its assignment to select
one symbol or the other for global use. Older editions of the Brochure list l
first. Edition 8 with L first is a hint that momentum *might* be increasing
for L at the only SI symbol for liter. Who has the clout in the CIPM to do this?
Gene.
---- Original message ----
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 09:22:15 -0800 (PST)
From: "John M. Steele"<[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:49029] Re: NPR story on ml dosing
To: "U.S. Metric Association"<[email protected]>
The 8th edition of the SI brochure states L first
then l in table 6, but does not otherwise convey a
preference. The US version NIST SP330 states a
clear US preference for L. Can anybody find actual
text of another national standard or law that
requires l in place of L? If both are allowed in SI
Brochure, it is probably fine to "prefer" one but is
it legal to "forbid" the other (in either
direction)? That might be "non-SI."
The CIPM has a standing assignment from 1979 to
submit a recommendation on eliminating one. In
1990, it was judged "too soon." I would point out
that 20 years later is considerably less soon and a
30+ year old assignment might be judged "overdue."
See 16th CGPM summary, resolution 6 in back of SI
Brochure or SP330.
------------------------------------------------
From: "[email protected]"<[email protected]>
To: U.S. Metric Association<[email protected]>
Sent: Mon, December 6, 2010 12:00:21 PM
Subject: [USMA:49027] Re: NPR story on ml dosing
A problem for exporters is the fact that Europeans
expect to see "ml" on labels, not "mL" or "ML" and
inspectors might require "ml" in the *primary*
location on labels, and reject products with "mL" in
the primary location.
Until BIPM specifies only L for liter and not both l
and L, exporters continue to have a problem. I find
no evidence that the CCU or the CIPM even consider
changing the order of preference in Table 6 from "l
and L" to "L and l."
...
--
James R. Frysinger
632 Stony Point Mountain Road
Doyle, TN 38559-3030
(C) 931.212.0267
(H) 931.657.3107
(F) 931.657.3108
