Re: LilyPond concept glossary?

[Trevor Daniels]

Mark Polesky wrote Tuesday, August 11, 2009 7:18 PM
> My "concept glossary" idea is now called a "technical glossary".
> I thought the name was fine when it was suggested, but now I'm
> realizing something -- I'd also like it to list terms that are not
> specifically dealing with LilyPond *internals*. Such as:
>
> the archives
> the LSR
> the tracker
> Rietveld
> Savannah
>
> These include words in the LP "vernacular". So when someone comes
> across one of these terms in the archives for example, they'll
> have a place to look up the definition.
>
> I believe that a central location for such jargon definitions will
> be very valuable. If they don't fit in a "technical glossary" than
> we should change the name of the glossary. Because I don't expect
> that anyone is in favor of adding yet another appendix? Although
> an argument could be made for compartmentalizing the resources...
>
> Thoughts?

These terms don't really belong in the Notation
Reference, do they?  Perhaps we need to think
again whether this appendix, whatever it is called,
is intended to help users or developers.  If the
intention is solely to help new developers then the
CG is the right place.  I was hoping we could also
include terms which helped users, hence I placed
it in the NR, but I think some of these terms would
stretch an NR appendix too far.

One solution would be to have a Technical Glossary
in the NR specifically for users and a Concepts
Glossary in the CG specifically for developers.

But I'm not even sure these terms are suitable for
a glossary.  They should really be explained in the
main body of the AU (first two) and CG (last three).

Trevor