Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. doc: New glossary entries

  1. some new glossary entries

    Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> — 2023-05-02T07:05:37Z

    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.

  2. Re: some new glossary entries

    Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> — 2023-05-02T10:06:08Z

    > 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

  3. Re: some new glossary entries

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> — 2023-05-02T10:24:15Z

    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/

  4. Re: some new glossary entries

    Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> — 2023-05-02T10:55:16Z

    > 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

  5. Re: some new glossary entries

    Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> — 2023-05-04T05:37:36Z

    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.