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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

The BIPM (from the French-language abbreviation for the International Bureau of Weights and Measures) sets the standards for the International System of Units (SI), which is the metric system in its modern form.  The BIPM is the international organization based in France charged with the day-to-day administration of the SI.  And according to those excellent and consistent standards, a space should always be placed between the number and the unit specification.  Thus, for example, the following are correct forms:

• 123’456’789 μm = 123’456.789 mm = 123.456'789 m = 0.123'456'789 km

• 3 L

• 5 W

• 7 mA

• 9 V

• 17 °C (here the unit is °C)

Of course, we could go on and on with examples. 

Inserting the space improves legibility.  First comes the number, then a space, and finally the unit.

Hmmm ... I confess that I have been doing degrees wrong. I have placed the superscript degree symbol immediately following the number, followed by a space and then a 'C' or 'F' to indicate Centigrade or Fahrenheit. I wonder how long it will take to retrain myself ...

I see this has already been sorted, but I want to bring in another reason to do it the correct way (with a non-breaking space between the value and the unit). In Norwegian, we normally write words like they are spoken. Where English speakers would write "chicken salad", we write "chickensalad" (kyllingsalat) because that's how we say it. By the same logic that you wouldn't say "fiftykilometres", "threetablespoons" or "twogallons", it's illogical to omit the space. Write it like you'd say it.

Hi Bjørn Edvard Torbo,

Thank you for your response.

First, however we should use spaces with words not involving numbers, I still contend that, when writing numbers, we should use the space. Doing so helps the legibility. I am talking about writing numbers using numerals.

Also, I congratulate Norway on being a consistent user of wall-to-wall metric units. I wish that we did the same in the United States.

On 1/10/2026 at 5:36 PM, MetricRocketeer said:

Hi Bjørn Edvard Torbo,

Thank you for your response.

First, however we should use spaces with words not involving numbers, I still contend that, when writing numbers, we should use the space. Doing so helps the legibility. I am talking about writing numbers using numerals.

Also, I congratulate Norway on being a consistent user of wall-to-wall metric units. I wish that we did the same in the United States.

Hi there, and thanks for replying

I kind of struggle to see how that's any different to what I suggested. "One" and "1" is exactly the same in spoken language, and both should have a space before the unit ("1 tbsp", "one tbsp", "1 tablespoon" or "one tablespoon" all being correct). Am I missing something here?

Thank you for your kind words, we're pretty happy about it. ;)

Right. I agree with all of these: "1 tbsp", "one tbsp", "1 tablespoon" or "one tablespoon".
However, I am saying that we should not use "1tbsp" or "1tablespoon".

That is exactly what I’m advocating, so we are in total agreement. 😊👍

Good.

What about surveyor's metes and bounds, such as

273.52 N 23º 47' 13" E [273.52 feet, bearing North 23 degrees 47 minutes 13 seconds east]

Or navigation:

Helmsman, steer a heading of 153º 47'

Superscript degrees, inches, minutes, seconds and the like is exempt, obviously. They already have “space” by their size and placement. If you write them out however, you should still use a space (also obviously).

What Bjorn has written is correct.
The BIPM explicitly writes:

“The symbols for degree, minute, and second of plane angle (°, ′, ″) are placed immediately after the number with no intervening space.”

They preserve the no‑space formatting because:

• It has centuries of global usage,

• It is the standard in mathematics, astronomy, navigation, and surveying,

• Changing it would break long‑standing conventions in science and engineering.

Subscript in chemical formulas, like H₂O, is also exempt, for obvious reasons.