Date: 21 Feb 2002 14:24:17 +0100 From: Wouter Van Hemel <wouter@pair.com> To: Michael Wardle <michael.wardle@adacel.com> Cc: "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@blarg.net>, parv <parv_@yahoo.com>, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, doc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: inconsistent use of data units Message-ID: <1014297857.177.20.camel@cocaine> In-Reply-To: <3C7490E9.3050100@adacel.com> References: <3C743707.3080505@adacel.com> <20020221003116.GA11893@hades.hell.gr> <3C744D 39.1020308@adacel.com> <1014256250.304.66.camel@cocaine> <3C745639.8080509@a dacel.com> <20020221022225.GA12900@hades.hell.gr> <3C745D8B.9090808@adacel.c om> <20020221025358.GB2678@moo.holy.cow> <3C7464B4.70004@adacel.com> <u3adu3bgb3.du3@localhost.localdomain> <3C74803F.4090004@adacel.com> <1014270449.303.117.camel@cocaine> <3C7490E9.3050100@adacel.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 07:17, Michael Wardle wrote: > Wouter Van Hemel wrote: > [...] > > If we decide to comply, all occurrences in the code should be changed too, > > as not to create a bigger chaos. We simply can't use KiB in our > > documentation, and ignore the difference with the real-life topics we are > > documenting. This is a decision that can't be taken lightly... Surely not > > for something that might never find steady ground in the 'real world' (no > > matter how convenient or correct). > > Quite true, but most occurences I've seen in the code actually use "K", > not "KB", "KiB", or something else! I believe this helps to illustrate > the lack of agreement and uniformity that currently exists! > Nobody disagrees with _that_... > > And on a side note, the documentation should follow the system; in case of > > KiB adaptation, this should start in de code, and only _then_ we can adapt > > the docs to reflect the system. > > Well, it has to start somewhere. What is important is that the changes > are made over as short a possible period of time, and that the > documentation accurately reflects the system, so changes would be best > made as close to simultaneously as possible. > > Are you saying this because you think the core code team won't like the > proposal? :-P > I'm not around long enough to know what will happen, but I can imagine it will be a bit like a bomb going off... And I think an at least as steady flow of mails bogging down the mailservers... :) > > [...] > > I'd like to say it again: that doesn't matter, in my eyes. We are _not_ > > the ones who come up (or should come up) with these regulations; our 'job' > > is writing documenation that's easy to understand. > > Very true. Point taken. > > At present, confusion exists. The only way to remove this confusion is > to produce a standard (preferably one that complements existing > standards, rather than redefines or contradicts them) and for that > standard to be widely-used. > Yes, and I don't think anybody here questions that. If we felt that your proposal was absurd and irrelevant, nobody would have reacted. ;) It'll just be damn hard to come up with a solution... 'Introducing KiB' -like many things- sounds so much more easy than actually doing it; it would involve _every_ aspect of the system - not just documentation... that's hundreds (thousands?) of occurrences... And a little but difficult twist in the minds of people, especially those that are around for a while. This is a decision that can't be made lightly, and it's unlikely that something will be agreed upon soon. > > Whichever choice leads to that; regardless of SI. > > Sure. > > Bye for now. :-) > Hah, you think we let you get away? :) Kind regards, wouter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the messagehelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1014297857.177.20.camel>