RE: C-h r and Images

[Drew Adams]

> > > What's more, it would be helpful to hyperlink directly to an explanation
> > > of the term in question, rather than just saying "which see" or some
> > > such English alternative to "q.v."
> >
> > I made a patch for it.  See bug#15254.
> 
> Thanks.  However, I'm not sure doing this is useful.  The Glossary is
> a long series of short paragraphs, each one explaining one term.  What
> your patch does is add a cross-reference to many of these short
> paragraphs, which makes those paragraphs longer and more complex to
> read and grasp at first glance.  OTOH, since the terms are listed in
> alphabetic order, it is quite easy to find a given term, even if you
> just scroll and don't use the search commands.
> 
> So my take of this is that on balance this is not useful.

I haven't looked at the patch itself.  But the idea should be, if
possible, to have inline xrefs (links).  That is, not add any extra text
(e.g. "See"), but just turn the term used in the text into a link to its
own definition.

That's pretty common in glossaries these days (and in indexes, when
referring to another index entry).

And yes, it's a lot easier to click (or hit `RET' on) a term to look at
its definition, and then click `Back' (or hit `l') to get back to where
you were, than it is to scroll down to find its definition and then
scroll back and find where you were.

Now, if it is not possible today to have inline xrefs in Info then
that's too bad.  Then it's a tradeoff: Is the convenience of direct
access worth the extra verbage ("See" or whatever) added?