Thread: acronym, glossary and other related matters in the docs
Hi, I was trying to write some docs for an AIO related view. As part of that I noticed that we referenced I/O a lot, but never defined it as an acronym or had it in the glossary. While adding those I got somewhat confused by things that have confused me in the past: 1) When are we supposed to use <acronym>IDK</acronym> and when not? We seem to be extremely inconsistent. E.g. git grep -P 'WAL(?=\</acronym)' doc/|wc -l 42 git grep -P 'WAL(?!\</acronym)' doc/|wc -l 904 Given that, at least for html, <acronym> doesn't change the display, that's perhaps not too surprising. But if we don't do it consistently, perhaps we should just stop doing it at all? 2) We have glossary entries explaining acronyms, but we rarely reference them. Is there a reason for that? It'd probably be silly to link glossary entries every time an acronym is used, often there are many uses close-by, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't ever do it? ISTM we should have a guideline for this. 3) Why are we referencing glossary entries mainly with glossterm? That ends up being rather verbose, because the link text has to be supplied. Afaict with our styling just using <xref> works nicely. Oddly enough we use <link> in one place in acronyms.sgml: <varlistentry> <term><acronym>AM</acronym></term> <listitem> <para> <link linkend="glossary-am">Access Method</link> </para> </listitem> </varlistentry> 4) We don't put the glossary entries in the index, despite that sometimes being the only place something is documented. E.g. "WAL writer" isn't anywhere in the index and we have no other docs for it. It's annoyingly repetitive, but <glossentry id="glossary-aio"> <glossterm zone="glossary-aio">Asynchronous <acronym>I/O</acronym></glossterm> <acronym>AIO</acronym> <indexterm> <primary>Asynchronous <acronym>I/O</acronym></primary> </indexterm> ... does result in a: "Asynchronous I/O, Glossary" entry. Greetings, Andres Freund
> On 21 Mar 2025, at 21:55, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > 1) When are we supposed to use <acronym>IDK</acronym> and when not? We seem to > be extremely inconsistent. E.g. > git grep -P 'WAL(?=\</acronym)' doc/|wc -l > 42 > git grep -P 'WAL(?!\</acronym)' doc/|wc -l > 904 > > Given that, at least for html, <acronym> doesn't change the display, that's > perhaps not too surprising. But if we don't do it consistently, perhaps we > should just stop doing it at all? I can't find a reference to it now, but I seem to recall a discussion which ended with a recommendation to use <acronym>IDK</acronym> for the first use of IDK in a "logical block" (a page, a set of linked <para>'s, a list etc etc), and omit it for subsequent uses. Basically, if <acronym /> one day would be rendered differently the decoration should help the reader without turning the documentation into a christmas tree. -- Daniel Gustafsson
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 1:55 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
Hi,
I was trying to write some docs for an AIO related view. As part of that I
noticed that we referenced I/O a lot, but never defined it as an acronym or
had it in the glossary. While adding those I got somewhat confused by things
that have confused me in the past:
1) When are we supposed to use <acronym>IDK</acronym> and when not? We seem to
be extremely inconsistent. E.g.
git grep -P 'WAL(?=\</acronym)' doc/|wc -l
42
git grep -P 'WAL(?!\</acronym)' doc/|wc -l
904
Given that, at least for html, <acronym> doesn't change the display, that's
perhaps not too surprising. But if we don't do it consistently, perhaps we
should just stop doing it at all?
See recent discussion regarding TOAST.
The vast majority of our uses of WAL can easily be considered using it as part of a noun and not as an acronym.
I haven't pondered I/O.
2) We have glossary entries explaining acronyms, but we rarely reference
them. Is there a reason for that? It'd probably be silly to link glossary
entries every time an acronym is used, often there are many uses close-by,
but that doesn't mean we shouldn't ever do it?
ISTM we should have a guideline for this.
I'm leaning toward not linking glossary entries in general. Most concepts that you'd want to link there have actually sections in the documentation that would be better linked to instead. And linking from those sections to the glossary seems redundant.
The glossary is basically a description-augmented index. You go there if you see a term in the wild you are unfamiliar with to see its description and get links into the main documentation for further discussion. Or to the index to see more completely all the places where it is mentioned. Like the index it is an interface to the outside world.
4) We don't put the glossary entries in the index, despite that sometimes
being the only place something is documented.
Extending from my observation above, the glossary and index should probably cross-reference each other.
David J.