Vision should have a Glossary

[cwilso]

Originally filed at WebStandardsFuture/Vision#43.

[tantek]

Proposed resolution: accept & resolve this issue: there was no objection in prior discussion, and it will help make the Vision more understandable to a broader audience, while helping it stay succinct which helps keep the Vision more accessible to a broader audience.

Proposed next steps to close this issue:

• create a Glossary file as a peer to the Vision document
• stub it (explicitly) with scope (the Vision document) and one or a few obvious jargon terms from the Vision (e.g. “phishing”) with anchors
• link to Glossary from the footer of the Vision document
• link from the first occurence of a jargon term in the Vision to the specific term in the Glossary
• add a “How to contribute” footer to Glossary encouraging proposed additions to grow the Glossary as necessary to define additional jargon terms in the Vision with broadly accepted uses & definitions within the W3C community, perhaps encouraging singular pull requests for terms that may require in depth discussion such as “centralization” or are otherwise contentious in actual practical use in W3C discussions.

Aside: in the interest of re-use, resources at https://www.w3.org/Glossary.html may be helpful, but let’s please avoid the trap of creating yet another “system” (to be unmaintained & abandoned) like https://www.w3.org/Terms

(Originally published at: https://tantek.com/2022/227/t2/)

[cwilso]

Ab approves of this proposal.

[jeffjaffe]

I suggest that where possible we link to existing definitions.

[LJWatson]

Adding the comment I made during the AB meeting today: a glossary is a good idea, but we should take care that it's used for industry and/or W3C specific terms, and not as a dictionary because the original content is difficult to read/understand.

[TzviyaSiegman]

Is this still needed or have terms been clarified?

[cwilso]

We have a non-Vision-specific glossary (https://w3c.github.io/AB-public/Glossary). That resolves this issue.