[seqfan] Re: Position of new material

[franktaw at netscape.net]

I'm not suggesting that any sort of effort be made to make every 
sequence follow these rules. But I think that sequences so organized 
are better than those that are strictly chronological, and improving 
some sequences is better than improving none of them.

As for differences of opinion about the importance and relevence of 
material: that is precisely what we have editors for.

Franklin T. Adams-Watters

-----Original Message-----
From: T. D. Noe <noe at sspectra.com>


At 10:31 PM -0500 11/26/11, franktaw at netscape.net wrote:
>Is there, or should there be, a standard rule for where new material is
>to be placed in the comments or formulas section of a sequence? My
>opinion is that the following rules should be applied, in order:
>
>1) If the new material is closely related to existing material, it
>should be placed next to it.
>2) More significant material should be placed before items that are
>more peripherally related to the sequence.
>3) Place new items after existing items.
>
>Basically, I think the sequence entry should try to present some degree
>of narrative rather than simply reflecting the history of the entry.

I think it would be too much work (and too open to opinion) to try to
organize entries as you wish.  Currently almost all new material is 
placed
at the end of a section.  I think we should continue to do this.