Re: some new glossary entries

On 02.05.23 12:55, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 2 May 2023, at 12:24, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)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.