The same could be said for Canada - a country which has had to adopt the best ideas from around the world to stay in the race, as it were, as well as create its own leading-edge concepts and ideas (e.g. the Canadarm, used on the Space Shuttle - or, at a rather mundane level, mandatory daytime running lights for road vehicles - worked in Scandinavia, adopted in Canada). In talking about Australia, Canada and Australia have co-operated on many projects. In particular (and one on which I was involved directly), the two countries jointly produced a very advanced performance-based model building code, which went on to become both the National Building Code of Canada (itself a model code that each province adopts, with or without modification) and the Australian Building Regulations (? Not sure if I have the correct title there). This performance-based code allowed virtually any type of building construction as long as it could be shown, by mathematical study or other methodology, that a performance-based level of safety could be maintained.
By contrast, the four American prescriptive-based model building codes are locked in an outdated past, impervious to new ideas and methodologies. It is this mindset that will, unfortunately, be America's undoing. It is the same mindset that resists metric conversion. John F-L ----- Original Message ----- From: Martin Vlietstra To: U.S. Metric Association Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 7:17 AM Subject: [USMA:48498] Re: So What Does the AP Stylebook Really Say John, In many ways I would give equal weight to Australian and American publications. The US is a much larger country (population-wise) that Australia and is therefore the home of much original thinking. However, being so large, it is difficult for ideas from outside the US to penetrate the US. Australia, on the other hand, is a well developed, first-world country, but being relatively small, needs to import a large number of ideas - the result is that she will import the best, be they American, British, German etc. That is not to say that the Aussies import all their ideas - they are, as far as I know, leading the development of one of the proposals for the new kilogram - the sphere of silicon. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of John M. Steele Sent: 10 September 2010 13:13 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:48488] Re: So What Does the AP Stylebook Really Say Thank you. I'd prefer to argue from a good American source, but the suggestion gave me an idea. I went off to look at the US GPO (Government Printing Office) Style Manual. It is available as a pdf. However, in my pdf reader, it renders poorly with many spacing errors (perhaps due to kerning in the original?). It you make allowance for the spacing and put broken words back together, it makes sense. It is over 460 pages and I just skimmed it. I think NIST must have advised on the metric as it all seems correct. My impressions (please recognize I searched some sections more carefully than others): *If they take a stand on metric vs. Customary, I can't find it. They describe both. *Around page 247, they define symbols for metric and Customary units. They are all correct, but they include a few obsolete ones such as Mc for megacycle (s/b megacycle per sec) but they recommend MHz. They use km/h for kilometer per hour. I guess the Customary is correct too -- but who's in charge? *The rules for abbreviations make sense: use where commonly known, spell out on 1st use otherwise. Rules on punctuation, capitalization, not using without numbers are correct for units of measure. *They recommend spelling out inch if the symbol "in" could be mistaken for a word. *Conversions are given around page 341. Focus is practical accuracy, but usually at least four figures. Better than AP, not as good as SP811. It is not binding if you are not in government and wanting something printed. There are at least 350 pages I didn't look at. But my first impression is that it is not a bad style guide, and it is certainly "official." For AP, I think an independent argument for "more metric" is needed. The GPO Style Manual may be the basis for "more use of correct SI symbols." A general style manual may be more convincing to AP than a technical document like SP330. Note to Pat: The GPO Style manual does insist on meter, liter, and deka-. It would appear even NIST bows to this direction, as they reference GPO for the spelling direction in SP330. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Pat Naughtin <pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Cc: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Fri, September 10, 2010 2:32:37 AM Subject: [USMA:48487] Re: So What Does the AP Stylebook Really Say Dear John, If you ever decide to explore this further might I suggest the Australian Government 'Style manual: for writers, editors and printers' as a source of additional information. I have to admit an interest in this style manual as I edited the section on 'Numbers and measurement'. Cheers, Pat Naughtin Author of the ebook, Metrication Leaders Guide, see http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html Hear Pat speak at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lshRAPvPZY PO Box 305 Belmont 3216, Geelong, Australia Phone: 61 3 5241 2008 Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they now save thousands each year when buying, processing, or selling for their businesses. Pat provides services and resources for many different trades, crafts, and professions for commercial, industrial and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and in the USA. Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST, and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com/ to subscribe. On 2010/09/08, at 03:56 , John M. Steele wrote: and when did it say it? I found my library had a 1998 copy hidden in the Reference section. It is laid out in dictionary fashion (alphabetic) so you have to thumb through it looking for measurement topics. It was NOT what I expected. Then I found a 2006 copy online (probably in violation of copyright) as a pdf. If anyone has later versions, I would appreciate updates to my remarks below. With S/H, a 2010 copy of the book is about $25, which I am not about to pay just to read the book and send them critical comments. OVERALL The metric system entry provides the best overall "policy" view: 1998: "In general, metric terms should be included in the story when they are relevant." It goes on to say no hard-and-fast rules, but gives examples such as the source using metric terms or statistics, or the term becoming common in the US (35-mm film, 2 L bottles). 2006: "For U.S. members, use metric terms only in situations where they are universally accepted forms of measurement or where the metric distance is an important number in itself." Contrast "should, relevant, common" with only, universally accepted, important." One encourages metric where it makes sense, the other is a near-prohibition, and for a journalist, a likely fight with the editor. To the degree we make recommendations to them, we should at least push for softer wording, per the 1998 statement. I doubt they will respond to a push for compulsary metric. They generally require units of measurement to be spelled out. They don't understand the concept of symbol. An abbreviation is only permitted if they say it is (few units of measures), and then it is what they say it is. This is more governed by appeal of the technology to people than any unified view of measurement, and the list of acceptable measurement abbreviations seems haphazard. They give conversions between metric and Customary units, but they are very rounded, generally two digits. DETAILS Temperature: They accept degrees Celsius or Fahrenheit or symbols C and F (without degree sign). In 1998, they listed a degree Kelvin, but this entry was corrected giving the example 273.16 kelvins in 2006. (except the freezing point of water is 273.15 K). Liter: is incorrectly defined as 1 kg of water at 4 °C. They mention it is equivalent to 1 cubic decimeter, but that is actually the current definition. Assorted abbreviations: They accept mph for miles per hour, no mention of kph. They accept mpg for miles per gallon on 2nd usage. In 2006, they accepted kHz and MHz for frequency, W, kW, and MW for power. They also accept kWh. Millimeters, mm, are the only length unit which may be abbreviated. They incorrectly accept KB, MB, GB for bytes, and Kb and Kbps for bits. They accept UHF and VHF for frequency bands and ips (inches per second) for tape speed. In the "Sports" section, they mention track and field is conducted mostly in metric units and then go on to give the only examples of reporting field events in feet-inches-fractions. They don't forbid metric, but they don't encourage it either. Interestingly, for the track events, they do permit short notation such as 100 m, where they would require 100 meters in other reporting. What might we wish for: *A more liberal policy on when metric should be encouraged or required *More accurate conversion factors, and then some notes on rounding sensibly to avoid "decimal dust" *Acceptance of symbols as the short (and language independent) form of unit words, and their correct usage. *Some latitude for the science and technology reporter to use SI more rigorously than general journalists.
