Re: Records not in Base

[Maren Purves <m.purves@jach.hawaii.edu>]

Andrew Johnson wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 December 2008 14:32:09 David Dudley wrote:
> > Is there some specific reason that some of these other records *aren't* a
> > part of base?

[...]

> > Is there any reason for these other records to *not* be considered for
> > inclusion into base?
>
> They are better off being separately maintained; this spreads the workload 
> across the community, and means that if nobody uses them they naturally stop 
> taking up maintenance effort. 

Here's an example: some 10 or so years back I needed a sequence record
with more 'output legs' than the regular sequence record, so I made
one. Most people probably long since forgot it exists, but when I
needed one again I knew where to find it. A lot of the records that
are not in base are rather specialized ...

Aloha,
Maren