Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Suarez, post: 4123619, member: 99239&quot;]Yes, I can agree with that. If one had to choose a reference RIC is the most obvious candidate for Roman coins. You&#039;re not, however, making the case for why you would implement the paper book system to the online world. Who would go looking in an online database page by page? A book has no choice. It has to list its entries sequentially because there&#039;s no other alternative. It is a limitation of the format that OCRE decided to adopt.</p><p><br /></p><p>I could see someone making the case that listing RIC&#039;s entries in sequence would be neat to have for whatever reason. Fine, you code the entries in a separate field and then that gives you the ability to sort records found in RIC&#039;s numbering. Having that extra field gives you the flexibility to key in other references with their own sorting abilities. But if you make that THE primary sorting order you&#039;re essentially painting yourself into a corner. When a new RIC edition comes out the whole scheme becomes instantly obsolete. If nothing else that reason alone makes it a design fail imo.</p><p><br /></p><p>Rasiel[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in