> BTW it's now visible at:
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/glossary.html
Nice. I went looking for it yesterday and the docs hadn't rebuilt yet.
ISTM that occurrences of these words elsewhere in the documentation should
link to the glossary definitions?
Yes, that's a big project. I was considering writing a script to compile all the terms as search terms, paired with their glossary ids, and then invoke git grep to identify all pages that have term FOO but don't have glossary-foo. We would then go about gloss-linking those pages as appropriate, but only a few pages at a time to keep scope sane. Also, I'm unclear about the circumstances under which we should _not_ tag a term. I remember hearing that we should only tag it on the first usage, but is that per section or per page?
As the definitions are short and to the point, maybe the HTML display
could (also) "hover" the definitions when the mouse passes over the word,
using the "title" attribute?
I like that idea, if it doesn't conflict with accessibility standards (maybe that's just titles on images, not sure).
I suspect we would want to just carry over the first sentence or so with a ... to avoid cluttering the screen with my overblown definition of a sequence.
I suggest we pursue this idea in another thread, as we'd probably want to do it for acronyms as well.
"ACID" does not appear as an entry, nor in the acronyms sections. Also no
DCL, although DML & DDL are in acronyms.
It needs to be in the acronyms page, and in light of all the docbook wizardry that I've learned from Alvaro, those should probably get their own acronym-foo ids as well. The cutoff date for 13 fast approaches, so it might be for 14+ unless doc-only patches are treated differently.
Entries could link to relevant wikipedia pages, like the acronyms section
does?
They could. I opted not to do that because each external link invites debate about how authoritative that link is, which is easier to do with acronyms. Now that the glossary is a reality, it's easier to have those discussions.
