In French-speaking areas, I’ve often seen a space between the $ and the number, and a space before a ? or a !. Over 100 years ago that was fairly common in English writing too (I’ve got some old books).
Carleton From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John M. Steele Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 19:39 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:54517] Fw: Posting of NIST SP 1181 Ignore prior note. I found the document at the link below: http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/pubs/upload/SP1181-Unit-Pricing-Guide.pdf I do stand on the comment below. Allowing different Customary units in a category across stores makes unit pricing relatively useless to compare between stores. Therefore I am sure Customary useless pricing will be universal if allowed. Other reactions: *I am not not sure using a font for unit pricing that is 50% of retail price font is adequate. I think the blocks should not be equal width, but, for example, 1/3, 2/3 so the unit price declaration (which is longer, can use the same font. The word "per" seems unnecessary and adds length to the declaration. I would at least allow, perhaps require, replacing it with a slash (/) as $2.10/L not $2.10 per liter as shown in one example. The shorter declaration would help allow for a larger font that my old eyes could actually read. *Is it customary to use a space after the $ sign or before the ¢ sign? I have never done so. In SI, it is required between number and SI unit. ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: John Steele <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> " <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; U.S. Metric Association <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 6:02 PM Subject: Re: [USMA:54516] Posting of NIST SP 1181 Can you post a link? I searched via Google and on NIST website and couldn't find it. If the goal is to compare unit prices between stores, then two or more choices for the same unit (ounce and pound for mass) can not be permited. Many consumers simply don't know the relationships. It would be much worse for fluid volumes, price per fl oz, pint, quart, or gallon. Best Practice: Metric only Marginal Practice: One Customary unit for mass, one for volume, mandated by legislation Worst Practice: Plethora of units for each type of measurement (mass, volunme, etc) _____ From: "mechtly, eugene a" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 1:56 PM Subject: [USMA:54516] Posting of NIST SP 1181 Today, December 19, OWM of NIST posted Special Publication 1181. The title is “Unit Pricing Guide”; “A Best Practice Approach to Unit Pricing” On Page 9 is the statement: “The following units and these only must be used." Metric Units of Measurement are accepted, the foundation of “Best Practice." In addition to the SI Units, many units from outside the SI are also accepted. Some of these are: price per ounce, and price per pound; and price per fluid ounce, per pint, per quart, and per gallon. In my opinion inclusion of non-decimally related units are a lost opportunity to make unit pricing, more independent of package sizes. Decimal multiples only (1, 10, 100, 1000) in the denominators of unit prices would make value comparisons much easier for consumers. Our currency is decimal based, why is the marketing of consumer commodities not yet completely decimal based? Eugene Mechtly
