On 02.05.23 12:55, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 2 May 2023, at 12:24, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@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.
