> If we can all agree that ACTG is a poor choice, we should
> switch to a better one. The chatter mentions a number of good
> alternatives. I suspect that a change will require one or more
> courageous journal editors. Are there any?
I think that it will take a bit more than one courageous editor ... 8-)
Considering the minor uproar over some recent features table changes,
just think of all of the complaints from people whose software would
be rendered obsolete unless they were provided with a conversion
program back to the old format. Enough said.
--
Sincerely,
Dave Kristofferson
GenBank Manager
kristoff at genbank.bio.net
