On 07/01/2020 17:21, Gedare Bloom wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 2:09 AM Sebastian Huber
<sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
On 03/01/2020 18:16, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 10:22 AM Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org
<mailto:ged...@rtems.org>> wrote:
[...]
I prefer we use a centralized glossary/document to generate individual
glossaries (via scripting or improving Sphinx). This will be a lot
easier to maintain.
The DoD Architecture Framework (DoDAF) calls this an AV-2 which is a
singular artifacr across the project for consistencyt
http://acqnotes.com/acqnote/tasks/av-2-integrated-dictionary
That said, you need glossaries in documents and automating pulling
definitions and acronyms out automatically producing a glossary and
acronym list from the master AV-2 is desirable. No one wants to
reference a standalone glossary.
There can be issues if definitions change over time because the single
AV-2 can't deal with old and new. It gets confusing. I have seen a
project where the AV-2 included history like the Oxford English
Dictionary. It was dreadful.
That's a lot of background to say this isn't a RTEMS unique problem. A
central database of acronyms and definitions would be a good thing. If
grep is sufficient to find word use to trigger inclusion in a document
specific glossary, great.
Good, so my proposal is this:
1. I move c-user/glossary.rst to common/glossary.rst and include this
file as is in c-user.
2. The glossary.rst for the other documents is generated from
common/glossary.rst based on the :term: usage. This can start simple,
e.g. only look at the *.rst files in the document directory (e.g. no
recursive includes).
Later when a new term is added for something not in c-user, then the
c-user should be updated to also derive its glossary with :term:?
(Before that, we might need to double check if the current glossary
terms are all defined/used in c-user with :term:.)
The :term: is sparely used in c-user currently. It would require a bit
of manual work to pull in all terms via this text role.
After one night, I don't like my proposal any more. I think it would be
better to move the glossary terms to the RTEMS specification (e.g. in
the RTEMS sources "spec/glossary/*.yml") and generate the glossary.rst
for the documents with a script. This gives us more flexibility and
removes the need for the special parser code, see:
https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2020-January/056811.html
The AV-2 mentioned by Joel wants the glossary terms in categories. We
could add categories to the glossary specification items. This would be
difficult with a master glossary in reST.
--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16
Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09
E-Mail : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
PGP : Public key available on request.
Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
