Re: Should a glossary be indexed?

["Edwin Skau" <edskau -at- hotmail -dot- com>]

> The rule for glossaries is that they are derived from the text. >This
means that the only things in a glossary are already
> defined in the text. The glossary entry is not supposed to
> add information not already in the text,
> so index that text and not the glossary entry.


Saaawwrrrray... The problem with rules is WHO make dem rules? And who done
stuck it on da 'frigerator?  And where be thissere 'friggenator.

In effect, the above rule describes a glossary as an index of terms used in
the document minus (or sans as some will have it) the reference.

Glossaries are often used to explain terms that are not necessarily
explained in the text because the explanation
would fit there like a wedgie in a grass thong.

Glossaries also often list commonly understood terms (that would be
irritating to explain in text) purely to establish the context in which
(nuance of?) the term is used in a document.

A Glossary is simply a list of difficult or specialised words and terms
(including acronyms and abbreviations, which have incidentally become
synonymous these days) with reference to usage in a given information
context (domain, field, or information object).

The "rule" is probably part of some internal style guide, which should stay
internal.

Indexing a glossary entry is just providing another entry point for the
reader, which is helpful in most cases. However, someone looking up the
meaning of a word could just as well look it up in the glossary.

If there are explanations in the text, and they're indexed, you (your
reader) shouldn't require a glossary.

-eddy