Re: Suggestions So Far
- From: Jerry Goldman <j-goldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: scotus_archive@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:11:24 -0500
Let me offer a mock-up of the sorts of visible editing decisions I have in
mind. I have attached a pdf of a recent per curiam opinion. Using Adobe
Acrobat's tools, I made some deletions which are obvious for others to see.
It strikes me that we need to know what editors cut. This example provides
an easy way to "see" the choices we make and then evaluate them. Without
knowledge of the parts removed (i.e., looking at a 'clean' document) we
would be clueless as to the editorial decisions. I also added a note at the
beginning of the opinion, again using Acrobat's commenting tool. This could
be a way to document editorial decisions or to provide commentary by the
editor. I'm not sure it is necessary, but it certainly is easy to use.
My concern is to find some way to identify different versions of the same
case so that we can distinguish Whittington's version from Schroeder's
version. I also think we should probably not overwrite or delete versions
once posted. Rather, we should find some way to keep and track versions.
Editing is an iterative process. Sometimes, earlier versions are better
than later versions.
I welcome your comments and criticisms.
-- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Ecartis --
-- Type: application/pdf
-- File: garvey-edit1.pdf
Other related posts:
