One must understand the underlying reasoning. "l" is the logical symbol as there was no Mr Litre. The French have no problem with the letter "l" as their "1", when hand-written, looks almost like an upside-down "V" (with the right-hand stroke vertical). However the Anglo-Saxon "1", when hand-written, looks very similar to the letter "l" - hence the compromise.
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of James R. Frysinger Sent: 06 December 2010 23:50 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:49042] Re: NPR story on ml dosing 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
