Re: kB, MB or KiB, MiB

[Shaun McCance <shaunm gnome org>]

On Sun, 2007-05-27 at 14:46 -0400, Germ�Po�ama�rote:
> On Sun, 2007-05-27 at 19:34 +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Sun, 2007-05-27 at 19:17 +0200, Daniel Nylander wrote:
> > 
> > > You are correct, it's more correct but maybe not appropriate.
> > > As I translator, I have started to notice that more and more
> > > applications start to use this new convention. For the beginning I was a
> > > bit negative but started to like it more and more.
> > 
> > I think consistency is most important here. So it would probably be a
> > good idea to bring this up on desktop-devel-list. If an agreement can be
> > reached that applications should use the IEEE_1541 symbols, then it
> > would be appropriate to file bug reports for this.
> 
> I remember it was discussed some years ago in gnome-network list[1], but
> documentation team had a recommendation written by that days[2].
> 
> Anyway, the situation has changed since then.  I agree we should use
> IEEE 1541.
> 
> [1]
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-network-list/2003-December/msg00011.html
> [2]
> http://web.archive.org/web/20040603162403/http://developer.gnome.org/documents/style-guide/x14800.html

1) The Style Guide is not infallible.  That section probably predates
IEEE 1541, or at least predates anybody in Gnome caring about it.  So
we can consider that information outdated and amend it.

2) That section doesn't actually specify what "kilo" means.  So while
it does say "48 Kilobit" and "48 Kb" (should be "kb", grr), it notably
does not say to abuse "kilo" to mean 1024.  It could be interpreted as
saying that we should always present multiples in proper SI multiples.

3) The abbreviations will never be widely used or known if nobody takes
the initiative to use them.

--
Shaun