Re: some new glossary entries

> 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

--
Daniel Gustafsson