Fw: \usemodule[units]

Fw: \usemodule[units]

[Willi Egger]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: K.H. Wesseling <k.h.wesseling@planet.nl>
To: Willi Egger <w.egger@xs4all.nl>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: \usemodule[units]

> According an ISO report of many years ago published by the US 
> National Bureau of Standards the litre is not ISO but may be used 
> nevertheless, meaning 1 dm^3. It is lower case l and lower case ml. 
> The problem is that l looks so much like 1 that the practical 
> americans use L for l. In my publications I use the $\ell$ which 
> produces a very clear letter that is not confuseable with either l or 
> 1.
> 
> Best wishes, Karel.
> 
> 
> On 5 Feb 2002, at 19:25, Willi Egger wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I am not familiar with the ISO-norm concerning the use of upper and
> > lower case for units. - My question is, if there is a definition for
> > the 'liter'. Is the abbreviation 'l' of 'L'. Further how to write
> > Milliliter: 'ml' or 'mL'?
> > 
> > Regards Willi
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 

Re: Fw: \usemodule[units]

[Eckhart Guthöhrlein]

Willi Egger wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: K.H. Wesseling <k.h.wesseling@planet.nl>
> To: Willi Egger <w.egger@xs4all.nl>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 11:01 PM
> Subject: Re: \usemodule[units]
> 
> 
> 
>>According an ISO report of many years ago published by the US 
>>National Bureau of Standards the litre is not ISO but may be used 
>>nevertheless, meaning 1 dm^3. It is lower case l and lower case ml. 
>>The problem is that l looks so much like 1 that the practical 
>>americans use L for l. In my publications I use the $\ell$ which 
>>produces a very clear letter that is not confuseable with either l or 
>>1.

This is definitely not a good solution. It is not only the ISO standard, 
but also common practice that all units are printed in upright (roman) 
type. Why make an exception for the litre? If you really fear confusion 
-- which is unlikely with suitable fonts and a reader aware of what he 
is reading -- then it's better to use the uppercase L.

>>
>>Best wishes, Karel.
>>
>>
>>On 5 Feb 2002, at 19:25, Willi Egger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I am not familiar with the ISO-norm concerning the use of upper and
>>>lower case for units. - My question is, if there is a definition for
>>>the 'liter'. Is the abbreviation 'l' of 'L'. Further how to write
>>>Milliliter: 'ml' or 'mL'?
>>>

In any case: consistently, of course. BTW, it's always correct to use 
the full name of the unit...

Eckhart

Re: \usemodule[units]

[Nigel King]

>>>> the 'liter'. Is the abbreviation 'l' of 'L'. Further how to write
>>>> Milliliter: 'ml' or 'mL'?
>>>> 
> 
> In any case: consistently, of course. BTW, it's always correct to use
> the full name of the unit...
But only if spelt correctly.
-- 
Nigel

Re: \usemodule[units]

[Hartmut Henkel]

>From http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/outside.html:

``The liter in Table 6 deserves comment. This unit and its symbol l were
adopted by the CIPM in 1879. The alternative symbol for the liter, L,
was adopted by the CGPM in 1979 in order to avoid the risk of confusion
between the letter l and the number 1. Thus, although both l and L are
internationally accepted symbols for the liter, to avoid this risk the
preferred symbol for use in the United States is L. Neither a lowercase
script letter l nor an uppercase script letter L are approved symbols
for the liter.''

Didn't know this. Sitting in Germany I thought it would be definitely
the `l'.

Greetings Hartmut

On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Eckhart Guthöhrlein wrote:

> Willi Egger wrote:
> 
> > I am not familiar with the ISO-norm concerning the use of upper and lower
> > case for units. - My question is, if there is a definition for the 'liter'.
> > Is the abbreviation 'l' of 'L'. Further how to write Milliliter: 'ml' or
> > 'mL'?
> 
> Both are officially correct at the moment. After an evaluation period, 
> one of them will be dropped (perhaps, this evaluation period has already 
> been extended...). I have the ISO standard at home, I will look up and 
> mail the exact wording tomorrow.
> In Europe, 'l' is common, whereas 'L' is preferred in the USA (and 
> therefore in scientific literature). Pick your choice.
> Apropos ISO: just think of the decimal sign. ISO says: "The decimal sign 
> is a comma on the line." Now, look at numbers in English texts...
> 
> Eckhart

Re: \usemodule[units]

[Eckhart Guthöhrlein]

Willi Egger wrote:

> I am not familiar with the ISO-norm concerning the use of upper and lower
> case for units. - My question is, if there is a definition for the 'liter'.
> Is the abbreviation 'l' of 'L'. Further how to write Milliliter: 'ml' or
> 'mL'?

Both are officially correct at the moment. After an evaluation period, 
one of them will be dropped (perhaps, this evaluation period has already 
been extended...). I have the ISO standard at home, I will look up and 
mail the exact wording tomorrow.
In Europe, 'l' is common, whereas 'L' is preferred in the USA (and 
therefore in scientific literature). Pick your choice.
Apropos ISO: just think of the decimal sign. ISO says: "The decimal sign 
is a comma on the line." Now, look at numbers in English texts...

Eckhart

\usemodule[units]

[Willi Egger]

Hi,

I am not familiar with the ISO-norm concerning the use of upper and lower
case for units. - My question is, if there is a definition for the 'liter'.
Is the abbreviation 'l' of 'L'. Further how to write Milliliter: 'ml' or
'mL'?

Regards Willi