I don't read French and didn't download the French edition of SI Brochure. The English edition gives l first because of chronology. It was adopted in 1879. It goes on to say L was adopted in 1979 to avoid confusion. I don't read ANY preference of l over L in the SI Brochure; if there is any preference at all, it is the reverse, but I am prepared to consider them entirely neutral. Your point that the table entry has switched from l first to L first is interesting. Note that SP330 shows only L in the body of the table, and mentions L preference in several foot and margin notes.
PS: When the BIPM says "several countries" or "some countries," that is code for us (US) troublemakers. :) (as well as anyone else we can talk into the same usage) ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, December 6, 2010 5:18:52 PM Subject: [USMA:49041] Re: NPR story on ml dosing 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." >...
