[boost] Re: Order of entries in the Bibliography section?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-28 14:07:24

Joaquín Mª López Muñoz <joaquin_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams ha escrito:
>
>> Joaquín Mª López Muñoz <joaquin_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>
>> > I've noticed entries do not follow any definite order. Print
>> > publications
>> > are more or less sorted by year, but other sections are seemingly listed
>> >
>> > at random.
>> >
>> > I propose the following:
>> >
>> > * Inside each section, sort lexicographically by year and author, for
>> > instance online mentions would get like this
>> >
>> >   [Burnap02]
>> >   [Curran02]
>> >   [Siek02b]
>> >   [Casad03]
>> >   [Lischner03]
>> >   [Stein04]
>>
>> I think it will be easier for people to find things if it's sorted by
>> author and year instead.
>
> Well, my rationale is that older entries tend to get obsolete, so the
> reader can concentrate on the fresher entries at the end of each
> section. But I can apply whatever policy we agree to adhere to.
>
>>
>>
>>   [Burnap02]
>>   [Casad03]
>>   [Curran02]
>>   [Lischner03]
>>   [Siek02b]
>>   [Stein04]
>>
>> I guess if you leave a blank line between years it might help.
>>
>
> ?? Isn't this last suggestion contradictory with having the entries
> sorted first by author?

Yes.  If you want to sort by year first, the sorting scheme would
become clearer with a blank line between years.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com