[jbovlaste] Re: Request For Comments: proposed Jbovlaste guidelines

["A. PIEKARSKI" <totus@rogers.com>]

I really like these guidelines and I wish I had know about them 
earlier.  I certainly intend to use them, except for...
"...the notes field for a lujvo should not explain which gismu it is composed of..."

Why so?

jvoblaste should be, among other things, a tool for learning by newbies.  Having 
the origin of the lujvo in the Notes is really helpful and takes vitually no space at all.

mu'o mi'e andrus

----- Original Message ----
> From: Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org>
> To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
> Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 11:35:41 AM
> Subject: [jbovlaste] Request For Comments: proposed Jbovlaste guidelines
> 
> I've noticed that each Jbovlaste editor writes definitions in slightly different 
> styles. This is not the editors' fault; IMHO we have a lack of good 
> documentation for how to do dictionary work. I'm trying to remedy this by coming 
> up with a set of guidelines.
> 
> I would like Jbovlaste to be as uniform and consistent as possible. This means 
> encouraging new definitions to be written in the same "house style", and 
> revising old definitions to conform.
> 
> Please have a look here:
> http://www.lojban.org/tiki//tiki-index.php?page=Proposed+jbovlaste+guidelines
> 
> and comment here and/or in the "Discuss" tab. You can also edit the page 
> directly.
> 
> -- 
> Arnt Richard Johansen                                http://arj.nvg.org/
> Si hoc legere scis, nimium eruditionis habes.