Christof Gessner

I would still lean against seeing this as a unit of measurement. - The naming is misleading. This is not "gravity", it should be "relative density" (or "relative mass density")...

No. It is an essential feature of UCUM to treat a numerical value as a different entity from unit symbols.

I was referring to the original post, trying to say that according to UCUM §7 and §8 you can't use floating point numerical values as part of a unit expression....

I am in favor of adding the mole as a base unit (using the newly proposed Avogadro constant to capture the numerical value, see https://github.com/ucum-org/ucum/pull/242#issuecomment-1274171445 ) Discussion to move from...

This refers to an implementation of a parser in XSLT which I did once a while ago. However, it never reached production stage. The motivation at that time was to...

base units ARE different from others in the sense that they are "terminal symbols" when it comes to reducing a UCUM expression to some "canonical representation", using only those base...

Not sure where you see the conflict. All I see is that this "international foot" definition in current UCUM exactly correponds to [ft_i], numerically. In UCUM the link to SI...

So we would not change the definitions of the now deprecated US units, but instead add the "[X_i]" versions for some (or all??) of the affected units. To be discussed.

Sometimes there is confusion around the apostrophe: Make sure that you don't use other characters here, e. g. backquote or single quotes. Otherwise, please contact the authors of the validator...

No. The prefix is tied to the unit atom, and not to a UCUM expression.