Space or no space before measurement units

[Aleksander]

Hello All,

While working on my first cookbook (in the UK), I've noticed that ingredients in text I've received lacked spaces before some abbreviated units, e.g. "500g", "50ml" but other had spaces, e.g. "2 tbsp". I've flagged it with the editor as a mistake, based on what I've been taught at school (not in the UK) and also a confirmation on this website: "Where there is room, leave a (non-breaking) space between the number and the unit." But the editor asked to leave as is because literally every single cookbook in the UK, including those of the biggest names in the industry, had it exactly the same!

I quickly checked all the cookbooks in my collection and found that it's true – all books published in the UK had no spaces before "g" or "ml" while leaving spaces before "tsp" or "tbsp", and all my Central European books had spaces. The horror!

To me, in the context of a cookbook, having no space is simply wrong as it's harder to read, not to mention the inconsistencies between different abbreviated units, both in the ingredient lists and in running text.

So why is that? Is it a case of treating the SI units differently in the Imperium or maybe just everyone blindly copying a badly typeset book from before? I just can't unsee it now, so I'd appreciate your advice – is it all good and I should leave it in the name of the greater consistency of the UK cooking industry or shall I fight for the spaces in the name of the Consitency King?

[Ralf Herrmann]

I prefer the compromise: a small (non-breaking) space. 

[SapereAude]

My day job is architecture and building code enforcement. I have to be able to work in both Imperial and metric units. I routinely see metric dimensions expressed both with and without a space between the numerals and the units. I think it comes down to local (meaning, essentially, national) preference and practice.

[Les]

I'm with Ralf. I set a lot of academic papers and have always found a thin space between numeral and unit the best solution.

[pereelmagne]

As with everything related to editing conventions, any publishing house or body can decide to adopt one practice or the other. In other words, there is no right/wrong paradigm. This is not spelling. Manuals of style can favor some practices, but in the end the decision is an in-house one.

[Les]

Whilst that is true, I also believe that good typographic practice is grounded in aesthetic sensibilities and in situations where the typographer has the jurisdiction he/she should be guided by those.

[pereelmagne]

Agreed. But maybe, more than aesthetics, editing conventions are motivated by convenience. ‘50m’ is faster and spares the need of the nonbreaking space. Someone used to see ‘50 m’ will find ‘50m’ “ugly”, but someone else may be accustomed to see ‘50m’ and see no need to write otherwise. Again, beyond manuals of style and in-house rules, what is there to say?

What I am saying is, do what you are told or what you can, but there rarely are objectively better solutions. 

[SapereAude]

For what it's worth, my day job involves codes and regulations pertaining to construction. My state (I'm in the U.S.) seems to have standardized on using a space between the numerals and the units.