Return-Path: owner-linux-activists@Niksula.hut.fi Return-Path: Received: from joker.cs.hut.fi by hydra.Helsinki.FI (4.1/SMI-4.1/36) id AA04585; Sun, 24 Jan 93 05:53:06 +0200 Received: from joker.cs.hut.fi by niksula.hut.fi id <62202-4>; Sun, 24 Jan 1993 05:51:22 +0200 From: "Linux Activists" To: "Linux-Activists" Reply-To: "Linux-Activists" X-Note1: Remember to put 'X-Mn-Key: DOC' to your mail body or header Subject: Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 93-0-24-0:0 X-Mn-Key: DOC Sender: owner-linux-activists@Niksula.hut.fi Message-Id: <93Jan24.055122eet.62202-4@niksula.hut.fi> Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 05:51:22 +0200 Status: RO X-Status: Topics: Glossary ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lars Wirzenius Subject: Glossary Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:59:00 +0200 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. -- Lars.Wirzenius@helsinki.fi (finger wirzeniu@klaava.helsinki.fi) MS-DOS, you can't live with it, you can live without it. ------------------------------ End of DOC Digest ***************** ------- .