From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S284467AbRLXG0e>; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 01:26:34 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S284469AbRLXG0Z>; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 01:26:25 -0500
Received: from www.wen-online.de ([212.223.88.39]:35086 "EHLO wen-online.de")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S284467AbRLXG0F>;
	Mon, 24 Dec 2001 01:26:05 -0500
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 07:25:44 +0100 (CET)
From: Mike Galbraith <mikeg@wen-online.de>
X-X-Sender: <mikeg@mikeg.weiden.de>
To: Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au>
cc: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>, "Eric S. Raymond" <esr@thyrsus.com>,
        David Garfield <garfield@irving.iisd.sra.com>,
        Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Configure.help editorial policy
In-Reply-To: <20011224094211.A15930@zapff.research.canon.com.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0112240713050.552-100000@mikeg.weiden.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 24 Dec 2001, Cameron Simpson wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 07:17:45PM -0200, Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> wrote:
> | On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> | > What, and *encourage* non-uniform terminology?  No, I won't do that.
> | > Better to have a single standard set of abbreviations, no matter how
> | > ugly, than this.
> |
> | Last I checked the purpose of language was _communication_.
> | Better use words people understand.
>
> Well, what we have is KB, which people _think_ they understand, but do not.
> And KiB, which is ugly but well defined, albeit less known (at present).
>
> | Also, the kB vs KiB mess is so ambiguous and complex that
> | it virtually guarantees that the _writers_ of documentation
> | will get it wrong occasionally and only confuse the readers
> | more.
>
> KiB is not ambiguous. KB demonstrably is.
> And therefore KB is NOT useful for communication, _especially_ technical
> communication.

Grep around in your RFC directory, and apply your argument.  The KiB
definition will _create_ ambiguity in technical communication which
did not exist before.

	-Mike