Re: Configure.help editorial policy

[Mike Galbraith]

On Mon, 24 Dec 2001, Cameron Simpson wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 07:17:45PM -0200, Rik van Riel <[e-mail]> 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