Terry wrote: >The US version is by default non-metric >e.g. "Not less than 1/16 inch (1.5 mm) in height".
I find this one particularly interesting. 1. As the NIST points out, it may lead producers to use the same order when using dual units e.g. '1 pound (454 g)'. They have asked for a specific statement to be made that any order is permitted, I would rather not have such an additional statement but would rather see the order of the units reversed in the example so that any ambiguity works in favour of metric. 2. It implies that the US Federal government is non-metric by default. I thought that the Federal government was supposed to be metric. If so, it could: a) legitimately say '1.5 mm (1/16 inch)'. b) legitimately say '1.5 mm' and leave all the non-metric values out except where context demands it (e.g. referring to dual unit labelling). There is, of course, legal ambiguity when using both measures in the act since 1/16 inch is 1.5875 mm. There can be no dispute about the size of a mm. In fact, there is a conversion chart right there lower down in the text. I can't see any reason why the Federal government needs to convert this technical information.
