network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 1 year, 2 months |
| seen | Mar 13 '12 at 20:00 | |
| stats | profile views | 0 |
|
Mar 13 |
awarded | Scholar |
|
Mar 13 |
accepted | Is the order of appendices according to their references fixed? |
|
Mar 13 |
comment |
Is the order of appendices according to their references fixed? Makes sense. Better have thematically connected appendices next to each other, thus after reading one appendix a related one can be "discovered" by the reader because it follows immediately. And it should not be important whether the link goes to page 1000 or 1200, because in either case it is "somewhere at the rear of the book". Just wanted to make sure it is not "nobody ever would do that ridiculous order". |
|
Mar 13 |
comment |
Is the order of appendices according to their references fixed? @NeilFein: There is no style guide (therefore the question). Otherwise it would just be: "do as the guide tells you", of course. It is a kind of report (which became way too long). |
|
Mar 13 |
asked | Is the order of appendices according to their references fixed? |
