some new glossary entries
I wrote glossary entries for some terms I wanted to look up there but
didn't find: "restartpoint" and "LSN". I put this together based on
existing text. "LSN" was already in the acronyms list but I think it's
more appropriate in the glossary, so I moved things around a bit.
Attachments:
0001-doc-New-glossary-entry-Restartpoint.patchtext/plain; charset=UTF-8; name=0001-doc-New-glossary-entry-Restartpoint.patchDownload+14-1
0002-doc-New-glossary-entry-Log-sequence-number.patchtext/plain; charset=UTF-8; name=0002-doc-New-glossary-entry-Log-sequence-number.patchDownload+24-3
On 2 May 2023, at 09:05, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
I wrote glossary entries for some terms I wanted to look up there but didn't find: "restartpoint" and "LSN". I put this together based on existing text. "LSN" was already in the acronyms list but I think it's more appropriate in the glossary, so I moved things around a bit.
+1 LGTM.
+ <glossentry id="glossary-lsn">
+ <glossterm>LSN</glossterm>
+ <glosssee otherterm="glossary-log-sequence-number"/>
+ </glossentry>The other <glosssee otherterm="foo" /> entries doesn't have a glossentry id
attribute set, is the use here related to the glossentry.show.acronym param?
--
Daniel Gustafsson
On 2023-May-02, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
+ <glossentry id="glossary-lsn"> + <glossterm>LSN</glossterm> + <glosssee otherterm="glossary-log-sequence-number"/> + </glossentry>The other <glosssee otherterm="foo" /> entries doesn't have a glossentry id
attribute set, is the use here related to the glossentry.show.acronym param?
I debated with myself for 347d2b07fcc2 on whether to add id attribs to
<glosssee> entries. The only saving grace for doing that is that you
can link to such entries; but if you do that, you're only causing the
user one more click in order to see the definition they want to see. So
in the end I decided not make the glosssee's directly referenceable.
And I think this new entry shouldn't have an id either.
I think that what glossentry.show.acronym allows is to show the
<acronym> text that's part of the main entry:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/28869578/docbook-5-rendering-without-abbrev-tag/28879785#28879785
so the fact that there's an id in the other entry doesn't change
anything.
If we do turn glossentry.show.acronym on (and I don't see any reason not
to), we can follow up later to add <acronym> and <abbrev> tags to other
entries, too.
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"I'm always right, but sometimes I'm more right than other times."
(Linus Torvalds)
https://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org/
On 2 May 2023, at 12:24, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2023-May-02, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
+ <glossentry id="glossary-lsn"> + <glossterm>LSN</glossterm> + <glosssee otherterm="glossary-log-sequence-number"/> + </glossentry>The other <glosssee otherterm="foo" /> entries doesn't have a glossentry id
attribute set, is the use here related to the glossentry.show.acronym param?I debated with myself for 347d2b07fcc2 on whether to add id attribs to
<glosssee> entries. The only saving grace for doing that is that you
can link to such entries; but if you do that, you're only causing the
user one more click in order to see the definition they want to see. So
in the end I decided not make the glosssee's directly referenceable.
And I think this new entry shouldn't have an id either.
Agreed, that makes sense.
I think that what glossentry.show.acronym allows is to show the
<acronym> text that's part of the main entry:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/28869578/docbook-5-rendering-without-abbrev-tag/28879785#28879785
so the fact that there's an id in the other entry doesn't change
anything.If we do turn glossentry.show.acronym on (and I don't see any reason not
to), we can follow up later to add <acronym> and <abbrev> tags to other
entries, too.
+1
--
Daniel Gustafsson
On 02.05.23 12:55, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 2 May 2023, at 12:24, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2023-May-02, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
+ <glossentry id="glossary-lsn"> + <glossterm>LSN</glossterm> + <glosssee otherterm="glossary-log-sequence-number"/> + </glossentry>The other <glosssee otherterm="foo" /> entries doesn't have a glossentry id
attribute set, is the use here related to the glossentry.show.acronym param?I debated with myself for 347d2b07fcc2 on whether to add id attribs to
<glosssee> entries. The only saving grace for doing that is that you
can link to such entries; but if you do that, you're only causing the
user one more click in order to see the definition they want to see. So
in the end I decided not make the glosssee's directly referenceable.
And I think this new entry shouldn't have an id either.Agreed, that makes sense.
I think that what glossentry.show.acronym allows is to show the
<acronym> text that's part of the main entry:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/28869578/docbook-5-rendering-without-abbrev-tag/28879785#28879785
so the fact that there's an id in the other entry doesn't change
anything.If we do turn glossentry.show.acronym on (and I don't see any reason not
to), we can follow up later to add <acronym> and <abbrev> tags to other
entries, too.+1
Committed with the recommended changes.