[Unicode]   Common Locale Data Repository : Bug Tracking Home | Site Map | Search
 
Modify

CLDR Ticket #7594(accepted data)

Opened 3 years ago

Last modified 2 years ago

"g-force" has an incorrect symbol "G".- it should be "g"

Reported by: jbedanova@… Owned by: pedberg
Component: main Data Locale: cs
Phase: dsub Review:
Weeks: Data Xpath: 3f5e050dda9d8ae
Xref:

ticket:7561

Description

(follow-on from cldrbug 7561: per jbedanova@…)

All the short and narrow symbols for g-force > "G" are incorrect.

"G" refers to "gravitational constant".
"g" is g-force.

The symbol for g-force should be lower-case "g" and it is identical to the symbols for "grams" (g). The tool was throwing false warnings for us in Czech (that warning issue is not fixed per cldrbug 7561:)

Moreover, we had this fixed and corrected during the previous CLDR phase, but somebody overwrote our values with the incorrect capital G.

Attachments

Change History

comment:1 Changed 3 years ago by kent.karlsson14@…

All the short and narrow symbols for g-force > "G" are incorrect.

Not at all true! Unless you are the devil's advocate...

Actually:

  • g (note: italics) is a physical (approximate, but convenient) constant, 9.80665 m/s² (the value would be different with a different unit of acceleration, of course, it's not a dimension-less constant).
  • The Wikipedia article refers to G (note: italics), the gravitational constant, approximately 6.67×10⁻¹¹ N·(m/kg)²
  • Neither of these is a unit!!!!! So "1g", "10g", etc. are plain multiplications, no explicit unit. You can evaluate those multiplications, to get values with a unit.
  • Note that the italics here is important. "cm" (italics) is the speed of light (c) implicitly times a mass (denoted with the variable m). While cm (upright) is the unit symbol for centimetre. Not only cannot unit symbols be case-mapped (even though some do so anyway, in error), nor can they be set in italics (but I think bold should be no problem, as long as they stay upright). The constants and variables, g, G, c, m, here cannot be case-mapped, nor can they be set upright (except in error...), nor bold.
  • Now, it is not uncommon to informally refer to "the acceleration (due to gravity) at sea-level on Earth" as a unit. It then cannot be written as upright g, as that is gram, and nothing else. Upright G is commonly used to informally refer to this as a *unit* (in popular texts, and news articles), while italic G is still the gravitational constant (not a unit). So: g (italics, an acceleration value) is not a unit, and g (upright) absolutely must be reserved for gram. It would be rather confusing, and indeed an error otherwise.

So please reinstate (and extend) the test, not permitting the use of upright g for anything else than gram. The mistake is understandable, but still a mistake, and must be counteracted.

Now, let's turn to the long form. "g-force" is not a unit. "g-force" (apart from not being a force) means acceleration, a physical quantity (or "physical magnitude"). It is also ungrammatical to say, e.g., "4 g-force". An appropriate long form is "Earth gravitations"; but some people don't like ever using plural for gravitation, though here it is determined (and thus ok). So either "times the gravity of Earth", or "times Earth’s gravity", would be fine as long form for this unit. But absolutely not "g-force".

comment:2 Changed 3 years ago by jbedanova@…

Hi, this is exactly what I am saying.

The CLDR data speaks of g-force. And instead os using "g" (in italics or whichever), it is using incorrectly "G" (which is not referring to g-force but to a gravitational constant).

Though I'm hearing it for the first time that all that makes a difference is italics versus regular font. (Anyway this is mainly a bug against the usage of "G" instead of "g" (whichever the font). However, I remember learning this from school - and obviously you do not "type" into your notebook while taking notes during the classes. How would a student be able to write with his pen a lower "g" in italics? That just sounds a bit weird to me.

Nevertheless, the short and narrow symbols still should be fixed - because "G" is in fact incorrect.

Jana

comment:3 Changed 3 years ago by jbedanova@…

btw - is it even possible to enter a lower-case "g" into CLDR tool in italics? (not sure how to do that). I simply corrected capital "G" with lowe-case "g" to get the symbols right and after that it was throwing me a warning error that it's the same as grams, but it's not in my power to do anything about the warning or to change it to italics so that it's different.

comment:4 Changed 3 years ago by kent.karlsson14@…

This is in a list of units, not a list of constants.

And G (upright, capital) is commonly (though informally) used for the corresponding unit, in newspapers/magazines/similar; physicists probably prefer to use the constant. Using g (upright) for this unit, however, is blatantly wrong.

Distinguishing italic, upright, etc. is common practice in math and physics. And for the SI units it is explicitly said that they must be typeset upright. (I know, people make mistakes, but mistakes should be counteracted, not set in stone or in CLDR...) G (written upright, capital) is not an SI unit, but is is a popular unit in informal contexts.

Well, there is
1D454;MATHEMATICAL ITALIC SMALL G;Ll;0;L;<font> 0067;;;;N;;;;;
But g, even if using U+1D454, is still a constant symbol, not a unit symbol.

comment:5 Changed 3 years ago by jbedanova@…

Ah, I finally got your point - that "G" upright is used informally as a unit for the g-force... Would not it make sense to actually create a category "Constants" in the CLDR and just throw it under there with its proper - fomral - symbol?
(And if not - what do you suggest we do with the translation? Revert it back to "G" and also use "g-force" even though you mentioned taht it is not correct either? or is the English source going to be updated?)

Also... speaking of "commonly" and "informally", I was also thinking that you might be referring just to "commonly/informally" in the US (?) maybe...
For example, this reminds me of the problem with centilitres, mililitres, hectolitres etc... E.g. in the US English locale it is commonly used as cL, mL, hL, while in Europe this is not acceptable - or I mean - you just simply would never find it written in a magazine or a publication like that. It's always cl, ml, hl since "litre" is always lower-case "l" (anyway there are two ways of writing this so it seems). Isn't it possible that it is the same with "g-force"? That it might be informally common in the US to write upper case "G", while not so common in Europe.(?) not that I want to argue, it's just an idea.

comment:6 Changed 3 years ago by kent.karlsson14@…

Revert it back to "G" and also use "g-force" even though you mentioned taht it is not correct either? or is the English source going to be updated?

This unit should use G in short/narrow in most locales (all latin script locales), and English long form should be "{0} times gravity of Earth". Using "g" for this unit is not only wrong, g is the unit symbol for gram nothing else, it looks silly too ("can't the author distinguish between weight and acceleration?"). Therefore, capital G is used in popular press. (While in physics it is preferable to use the constant g, since G is not really a unit, and SI units are preferable.)

For example, this reminds me of the problem with centilitres, mililitres, hectolitres etc... E.g. in the US English locale it is commonly used as cL, mL, hL, while in Europe this is not acceptable - or I mean - you just simply would never find it written in a magazine or a publication like that. It's always cl, ml, hl since "litre" is always lower-case "l"

As I wrote elsewhere, using capital L for litre is international standard (both l and L are acceptable, but l is easily mistaken for a 1, so 1L is better than 1l for that reason). Using capital L for litre is becoming more and more common. (Aside: I do not live in the US...) See http://www.bipm.org/jsp/en/ViewCGPMResolution.jsp?CGPM=16&RES=6.

comment:7 Changed 3 years ago by jbedanova@…

So who is going to fix the English source? I'd prefer to make all the changes to CS locale and provide new translations, once the English source is 100% correct and stable so that I do not have to do this several times back and forth.

Regarding using capital "L" in litres I replied here: http://unicode.org/cldr/trac/ticket/7562
This resolution you mention from 1979 was abrogated in 1990. I would leave it up to each locale to decide what is more and more common in each country since there's no standard set in stone.

comment:8 Changed 3 years ago by kent.karlsson14@…

Replying to jbedanova@…:

So who is going to fix the English source?

Only the committee do changes to "en".

I'd prefer to make all the changes to CS locale and provide new translations, once the English source is 100% correct and stable so that I do not have to do this several times back and forth.

I don't recommend that strategy at all, after years of experience. Too long wait in most cases.

This resolution you mention from 1979 was abrogated in 1990.

Why do you think that? There was a comment added in 1990, saying that the committee thought it too early to settle on one symbol. No cancellation of any resolution. My personal guess is that that is to be read as "it was too early to fully change to L instead of l for litre".

I would leave it up to each locale to decide what is more and more common in each country since there's no standard set in stone.

There is no reason to arbitrarily (and yes, it would be quite arbitrary) vary between L and l.

comment:9 Changed 3 years ago by srl

  • Data Xpath set to 3f5e050dda9d8ae
  • Reporter changed from pedberg to jbedanova@…

comment:10 Changed 3 years ago by mark

  • Owner changed from anybody to mark
  • Status changed from new to assigned
  • Milestone changed from UNSCH to 26rc

Mark to consult with others and report back.

comment:11 Changed 3 years ago by mark

  • Owner changed from mark to pedberg
  • Milestone changed from 26rc to 27dsub

comment:12 Changed 3 years ago by markus

  • Phase set to dsub
  • Milestone changed from 27dsub to 27

comment:13 Changed 3 years ago by pedberg

  • Milestone changed from 27 to 28

comment:14 Changed 2 years ago by markus

  • Type changed from defect to data

comment:15 Changed 2 years ago by srl

  • Status changed from assigned to accepted

comment:16 Changed 2 years ago by pedberg

  • Milestone changed from 28 to 29

Out of time, look at early in 29 if possible

comment:17 Changed 2 years ago by emmons

  • Milestone changed from 29 to upcoming

Auto move of all 29 -> upcoming

View

Add a comment

Modify Ticket

Action
as accepted
Author


E-mail address and user name can be saved in the Preferences.

 
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.