John, see my responses below. "John M. Steele" <jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >... >With respect to units and prefixes, where you say >"multiples" is it necessary >to say "multiples and >submultiples" to include prefixes less than >one? > The examples *imply* that the term "multiples" includes both multipliers,less than 1 and greater than 1. I doubt that packagers will find the distinction necessary. >*Do we need to allow "l" for liter? Should we just allow >the preferred >"L"? When the CCU, and >the CIPM deprecate the symbol "l" for liter in favor of "L";"L" should be used >in mL rather than "ml", but "ml" is so broadly used globally in medicine and >pharmacy that I prefer to keep "ml" as an option at least for now. > >*In the FPLA, it is left to FTC rules (500.24). In the UPLR (6.5.1), it >is explicitly stated. Only certain prefixes may be used with certain >units to cover rule of 1000 and avoid excessive prefixes. For example >in the US, only mL or L may be used, cL and dL may NOT be used. You can >leave it to agency rules, but I think the sense of "these >and no others" >should be >preserved. The >FPLA is the "umblella" Act, and should be the most permissive, in my opinion. >Let the other Act be more restrictive in specialized domains where constraints >are more appropriate.
Gene.
