On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Richard Laager wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-01-12 at 21:26 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>> Until I start seeing kibibyte being used in the New York Times, or the
>> prefered usage in the Chicago Manual of Style, the kibibyte is little
>> more to me than an intriguin
On Wed, 2011-01-12 at 21:26 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> Until I start seeing kibibyte being used in the New York Times, or the
> prefered usage in the Chicago Manual of Style, the kibibyte is little
> more to me than an intriguing expression of pedantry. Yes, the
> existing usage is confusi
On 12 Gen, 14:26, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> You won't see me disagreeing. +1 to keeping as is.
> Until I start seeing kibibyte being used in the New York Times, or the
> prefered usage in the Chicago Manual of Style, the kibibyte is little
> more to me than an intriguing expression of pedantry
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Gabriel Hurley wrote:
> Though technically accurate, I would say it goes against the rest of the
> purpose of that filter: "human readable".
> And though technically inaccurate, everyone from hard drive manufacturers to
> major web companies use KB, MB, etc. to rep
Though technically accurate, I would say it goes against the rest of the
purpose of that filter: "human readable".
And though technically inaccurate, everyone from hard drive manufacturers to
major web companies use KB, MB, etc. to represent filesizes. I'd argue that
it's become a de facto (if
Not a big issue, I know... but aren't we perfectionist? :-)
Looking here:
http://code.djangoproject.com/browser/django/trunk/django/template/defaultfilters.py#L794
and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibibyte
I see that a more correct value should be 1000 or more correct labels
should be KiB
