> 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 -- Daniel Gustafsson
