<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/1/2023 12:26 PM, Kent Karlsson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:48B734CC-B191-4B80-BB9E-30B86BCB1FB7@bahnhof.se">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode:
space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class="">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">25 mars 2023 kl. 22:34 skrev Asmus Freytag via
Unicode <<a href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" moz-do-not-send="true">unicode@corp.unicode.org</a>>:</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D87FAFE6-BD11-4891-993A-2A9783B84B4B@bahnhof.se"
class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm; line-height:
15.546667098999023px; font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="color:
rgb(132, 60, 12);" class="" lang="EN-GB">>for
unit symbols. When used with temperature, it's
interesting to note that not all temperature<o:p
class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm; line-height:
15.546667098999023px; font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="color:
rgb(132, 60, 12);" class="" lang="EN-GB">>scales
use it consistently. You don't see it with
Fahrenheit very often, for example, reflecting<o:p
class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm; line-height:
15.546667098999023px; font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="color:
rgb(132, 60, 12);" class="" lang="EN-GB">>differences
in traditional keyboard layouts.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm; line-height:
15.546667098999023px; font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span class=""
lang="EN-GB"> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm; line-height:
15.546667098999023px; font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span class=""
lang="EN-GB">Ok, let’s digress a bit… I do see
that too, in news articles (in web apps) from USA
and British news<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm; line-height:
15.546667098999023px; font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span class=""
lang="EN-GB">companies and see also “C” when
degrees Celsius is meant. But writing farad (F) or
coulomb (C)<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm; line-height:
15.546667098999023px; font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span class=""
lang="EN-GB">when referring to temperature is just
horrible, and only embarrassing for the journalist
who wrote<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm; line-height:
15.546667098999023px; font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span class=""
lang="EN-GB">that. (Another related horror is
“kph”, and there you cannot even blame keyboard
layouts.)</span></div>
</blockquote>
<p class="">I think it goes a bit too far to assume that
any and all unit abbreviations have to be in the SI
notation always.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Unit designations are not abbreviations. They are
mathematical symbols, like ”lim”, ”sin”, ”arctan”, ”∫”, ”+”,
”24”, … And they participate in arithmetic/math expressions,
like division, multiplication (including integer powers),
and multiplication with numerical constants (like ”42.5”)
and variables. While it is permissible to, say, write ”sns”
instead of ”sin” for the sinus function, it is not a great
idea to do so. Even worse would be to write ”lim” instead of
”sin” for the sinus function (which is directly comparable
to the example with units above).</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
In scientific usage.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:48B734CC-B191-4B80-BB9E-30B86BCB1FB7@bahnhof.se">
<div dir="auto" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode:
space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
<div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>The SI symbols are standardized, in a standard I’d say is
the most important in the modern world. More important than
Unicode/10646… It is a bit odd that representatives of a
rather important IT standard does not recognize the
importance of the most important, overall, standard in the
world today (and for foreseeable future).</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It is a standard, but that doesn't mean that it's the only
standard for expressing weights and measures.</p>
<p>There may be jurisdictions where it's illegal to use another
standard in a commercial or legal context, but that still doesn't
mean that other conventions don't exist whether instead or in
parallel to the SI. Those details depend on the jurisdiction.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:48B734CC-B191-4B80-BB9E-30B86BCB1FB7@bahnhof.se">
<div dir="auto" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode:
space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<p class="">I'm sure there are places where there are
regulations that define the use of specific
abbreviations and in any contexts where they apply to
SI, you would be free to read "k" as kilo and "kph" as
kilo-ph (and then reject that as undefined). The same
is not true for ordinary everyday usage in places
where SI units aren't customary. <br class="">
</p>
<p class="">Likewise, the "ph" suffix to mean "per hour"
is well established in places, while "/h" is not. That
said, given that usage, I'd personally prefer kmph
over kph.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I have never seen ”p” as the division operator in a properly
formed mathematical expression. Permitted? Yes, of course. But
”rare and unusual”, and definitely a bad idea.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
It's definitely common and the accepted usage for at least 330
million people. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:48B734CC-B191-4B80-BB9E-30B86BCB1FB7@bahnhof.se">
<div dir="auto" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode:
space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""> For example, in the weather forecast, 80F
never refers to capacity, is understood by the audience,
and therefore there's no objection to that usage on
ground of confusion with SI units.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
That is not it. The thing is to keep with conventional, even
standardised, notation or not. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
The use of 80F is totally "standard" in those places where it is
used. No amount of wishing something else will change that. (I
suspect that there are standards that codify that usage, but I'm not
willing to dig that deep for the purpose of this discussion: it's
enough that it's a commonly used convention).<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:48B734CC-B191-4B80-BB9E-30B86BCB1FB7@bahnhof.se">
<div dir="auto" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode:
space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
<div>Even when keeping with conventional notation for units,
there are ambiguities that need to be resolved by context:
e.g. is B bel or byte? With a prefix (at a minimum, usually
there is much more context), the ambiguity is resolved, there
are no decibyte nor any megabinarybel (theoretically, there is
megabel, but in practice not). If widening to chemistry, B
could stand for boron; while not a unit of measure, it will
have the same style as a (properly written) unit symbol. But
there is no need to diverge from standard (pun intended)
practice just because resolution by context is possible for
the divergent notation.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
We are not discussing someone creating an alternate system just to
be different. We are talking about alternate systems that exist, are
widely understood among its users and that there are jurisdictions
that have decided not to mandate the use of SI (except for selected
purposes). <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:48B734CC-B191-4B80-BB9E-30B86BCB1FB7@bahnhof.se">
<div dir="auto" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode:
space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Your example is just like if one were to use V for
hydrogen, just because one would know from a particular
context that hydrogen is meant and not vanadium. I think if
anyone were to write V and mean hydrogen, there would be heavy
criticism.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
No, the example would be if Germany had adopted "S" for "Sauerstoff"
instead of "O". This did not happen, for various reasons, but in
theory you can have a translated system of element names that is as
self-consistent as the standard one. (Just like some countries
translate character names in 10646).<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:48B734CC-B191-4B80-BB9E-30B86BCB1FB7@bahnhof.se">
<div dir="auto" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode:
space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
<div>True, people may err in various ways. But I’m referring to
people who should know better, like w.r.t. temperature:
journalists and weather presenters.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
There is no "better" here. Presenting weather forecasts in
temperatures in centigrade to an American audience is pretty near
useless. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:48B734CC-B191-4B80-BB9E-30B86BCB1FB7@bahnhof.se">
<div dir="auto" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode:
space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>(Nit: I’ve even seen F° and C°, which looks even more,
ummm, uneducated. And that in a worldwide well-known weather
app. Go find! :-) They use technology from another company
that gives prognosis for the amount of dandruff in the air…
(but not in English). To make the whole thing even more
comical, they pride themselves of being sooo accurate… Two
all-year-round April’s fools jokes :-).)</div>
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""> However, usage is not consistent, you see
it both with and without the degree sign, and without
naming names, websites by academic institutions are just
as likely to leave it off as popular websites are likely
to add it.<br class="">
<br class="">
As you can see, actual usage is all over the place and
as Unicode is not prescriptive, we simply deal with
what's out there.<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>But you do complain when things ”out there” are not up to
par. Like in the ZWJ discussion not long ago.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>There's a difference between being "descriptive" in your encoding
(describing how certain text elements map to encoded character
sequences whether or not these elements are preferred in any
"prescriptive" system), and being prescriptive in what certain
encoded elements are intended for. <br>
</p>
<p>A./<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:48B734CC-B191-4B80-BB9E-30B86BCB1FB7@bahnhof.se">
<div dir="auto" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode:
space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D87FAFE6-BD11-4891-993A-2A9783B84B4B@bahnhof.se"
class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm; line-height:
15.546667098999023px; font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span class=""
lang="EN-GB"><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>/Kent K</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>