Subject: Glossary
From: wirzeniu@kruuna (Lars Wirzenius)
To: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:59:14 EET

X-Mn-Key: doc

About glossaries for the Linux documentation:

Piers Cawley volunteered to write a glossary for the Linux
documentation.  Lars Aronsson already has written one, although not as
part of the documentation project.  From what I browsed of Lars'
glossary, it seems to cover most areas of relevance to Linux, and I
don't personally see a reason to write another one.  However, it _is_
perhaps a bit large, and I don't think it is a bad idea to have a
small, more specific glossary at the end of each separate manual
(reduces the reader's need to have several manuals open).

If Piers and Lars want to, perhaps they could work together on the
glossary?  See below for a suggestion on dividing the work load.

I can think of at least two things that Lars' glossary, or dictionary,
or whatever it should be called, should have: better formatting for
hardcopy and even more references to manuals where the things are
explained in more detail.  This is not criticism on Lars' work, just
an opinion that these things should be done.  I assume that Lars is
going to add all the cross references he can think of.  Besides, it's
somewhat difficult for him to reference manuals that aren't written
yet... 

However, Lars seems to be reluctant to use LaTeX, which is
understandable (editing a glossary isn't necessarily nice in LaTeX),
we need somebody else to do the formatting.  Piers, are you
interested?  I'd assume that Lars would do the actual glossary
editing, while Pierce would convert each version to LaTeX for
formatting (this should be automatable, at least to some degree).

Of course, if there is much disagreement about the contents of the
glossary, this might not work very well.

--
[email-masked]  (finger [email-masked])
   MS-DOS, you can't live with it, you can live without it.