This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>, Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal dot cx>
- Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:26:00 +0000
- Subject: Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <528A7C8F dot 8060805 at redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311182312130 dot 8831 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <orob5fv8nl dot fsf at livre dot home> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311201555320 dot 28804 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <orli0itbm5 dot fsf at livre dot home> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311211322040 dot 14539 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <or4n75t4b7 dot fsf at livre dot home>
On Fri, 22 Nov 2013, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > I think we should generally go for longer text that makes sense on its own
> > rather than non-English keywords. (Although having a cross-reference to
> > the detailed definitions *also* makes sense.)
>
> These come across as contradictory requirements.
>
> If keywords make sense on their own, readers won't look up their
> detailed definitions, and miss out on the details you regard as
> essential for them to be aware of.
I'd like extended names, which are links to their definitions. In the
absence of being able to do that in Texinfo, follow the list of keywords
(which should still be extended names) with something like "See [ref] for
detailed definitions.".
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com