Hi Corey,
>> 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.
Id go for scripting the thing.
Should the glossary be backpatched, to possibly ease doc patchpatches?
> Also, I'm unclear about the circumstances under which we should _not_
> tag a term.
At least when then are explained locally.
> I remember hearing that we should only tag it on the first usage, but is
> that per section or per page?
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).
The following worked fine:
<html><head><title>Title Tag Test</title></head>
<body>The <a href="acid.html" title="ACID stands for Atomic, Consistent, Isolated & Durable">ACID</a>
property is great.
</body></html>
So basically the def can be put on the glossary link, however retrieving
the definition should be automatic.
> 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.
Dunno. The definitions are quite short, maybe the can fit whole.
> I suggest we pursue this idea in another thread, as we'd probably want to
> do it for acronyms as well.
Or not. I'd test committer temperature before investing time because it
would mean that backpatching the doc would be a little harder.
>> 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.
Ok.
--
Fabien.
