I understand that, Martin.
My point is that the primacy of one case (upper or lower) over the other
case is a picayune point. There are larger issues on the CIPM's agenda.
Periodically this mail list gets flooded (and thus also my inbox) by
emails worrying about the proper way to lace the dancing slippers of
those angels on the head of that pin.
We are on the cusp of a major revision to the way the SI units are
defined and the letting go of the last of the artifacts that used to
support those definitions.
NMIs are working feverishly to refine their techniques to close the gaps
sufficiently to permit those re-definitions.
Major issues are being addressed by OIML and trade organizations
regarding the restriction of trade in goods not labeled in metric units.
ISO and IEC are nearing the end of a major overhaul of the International
System of Quantities (ISQ) and that ties into the work of the CGPM and
CIPM. The ISQ is being pushed into new areas with the work in progress
on ISO/IEC 80003 series. Conceivably, someday a new SI derived unit or
two might be defined as a result of this work, as it includes
physiological units and thus might pertain to health and safety.
Harmonization of standards is proceeding at a record pace.
National Metrological Institutes (NMIs) are deeply involved in
comparisons of their realizations of various units and their
measurements of critical substances.
The U.S. Congress and many U.S. agencies persist in being obstacles in
revising the FPLA to permit metric-only labeling on a voluntary basis.
Never mind the remote likelihood of mandating metric-only labeling and
usage in this country!
Frankly, I don't care whether L precedes l or vice versa on someone's
table of units.
Jim
On 2010-12-08 1413, Martin Vlietstra wrote:
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
