| Revision as of 03:31, 18 April 2008 editGreg L (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,897 edits →New MOSNUM policy to address more than just binary prefixes: typo← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:13, 18 April 2008 edit undoDavidPaulHamilton (talk | contribs)237 edits reply to GregNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==New MOSNUM policy to address more than just binary prefixes== | ==New MOSNUM policy to address more than just binary prefixes== | ||
| Since ] on ] to no longer routinely use the IEC prefixes (kibibytes & KiB), I thought you’d be interested to know that the best we could muster at this time is a more general principal . I’m sorry I couldn’t deliver anything better at the moment. However, I hope you will agree that it speaks to the basic principal underlying that whole debate. ] |
Since ] on ] to no longer routinely use the IEC prefixes (kibibytes & KiB), I thought you’d be interested to know that the best we could muster at this time is a more general principal . I’m sorry I couldn’t deliver anything better at the moment. However, I hope you will agree that it speaks to the basic principal underlying that whole debate. ] (]) 03:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *Thanks. I will read the proposal when I am not tired.] (]) 23:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:13, 18 April 2008
New MOSNUM policy to address more than just binary prefixes
Since you voted on a proposal to no longer routinely use the IEC prefixes (kibibytes & KiB), I thought you’d be interested to know that the best we could muster at this time is a more general principal here on MOSNUM. I’m sorry I couldn’t deliver anything better at the moment. However, I hope you will agree that it speaks to the basic principal underlying that whole debate. Greg L (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will read the proposal when I am not tired.DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)