Open questions

[clairedavid]

Formula to fix:

\threed ?? \efield replaced by ?? \nue replaced by ?? \numu replaced by ?? \nominalmodsize replaced by ?? \SI{10}{kt}\xspace ? \fdfiducialmass replaced by ?? \SI{40}{\kt}\xspace ? \microboone \minerva \twod \frfour \phel $\muTCA$

RHC: reverse horn current ($\overline{\nu}_{\mu}$ mode) is it rather \newcommand{\anumu}{\ensuremath{\bar\nu_\mu}\xspace} (could be overline here to span all the width of the symbol)

Rare cases

• [x] \dshort used only once for DAQ: replaced with \gls{daq}

How to Handle citations?**

SNOwGLoBES From the official description~\cite{snowglobes}:SNOwGLoBES

• [x] Removed.

On the glossary content:

The acronym is repeated in the definition:

Verilog-AMS is a derivative of the Verilog hardware description language that includes analog and mixed-signal extensions (AMS) in order to define the behavior of analog and mixed-signal systems.

The description is just a repetition of the acronym

OSG Open Science Grid Open Science Grid.

Space missing?

(entry CATIROC): should we leave AustriaMicroSystem this without spaces?

[brettviren]

All the "formula to fix" are in common/defs.tex. They are intended either to provide easier-to-type shorthand or to collect some "spelling" that might differ between authors (eg, "3D" vs "3-D") or to collect numerical choices that might change (or a mix). I think we should avoid specific numerical values in a definition but the rest probably should be used in glossary definitions to keep consistency.

It's fine and probably best in the glossary definitions to to avoid any \dshort or other higher-level macros which we define for use in the document body and instead stick to using the lower level \gls macros.

I don't think we need citations in the glossary.

I'm sure there will be lots of corrections on the content. I'd not worry about them immediately but rather assure a smooth workflow for people to make corrections to the "single source of truth" file(s). Ie: making PRs against some repository holding glossary.tex.

[clairedavid]

All the "formula to fix" are in common/defs.tex. They are intended either to provide easier-to-type shorthand or to collect some "spelling" that might differ between authors (eg, "3D" vs "3-D") or to collect numerical choices that might change (or a mix). I think we should avoid specific numerical values in a definition but the rest probably should be used in glossary definitions to keep consistency.

I am aware of this. So far I replaced the ones that should be gls{} terms. Now for the rest, what is the best: should I make a dictionary to convert these into HTML? I can create a separate file, e.g. defs.py and import it into the main converter script. Please confirm or comment on that, thanks!

It's fine and probably best in the glossary definitions to to avoid any \dshort or other higher-level macros which we define for use in the document body and instead stick to using the lower level \gls macros.

Agreed, I vote for replacing the only occurrence of \dshort with \gls. Please confirm.

I don't think we need citations in the glossary.

Agreeing too. I plan to remove it, if you also agree.

I'm sure there will be lots of corrections on the content. I'd not worry about them immediately but rather assure a smooth workflow for people to make corrections to the "single source of truth" file(s). Ie: making PRs against some repository holding glossary.tex.

My next step is to try out pypandoc or other latex2html converter. I was recently told about this one: https://github.com/svenkreiss/unicodeit

[brettviren]

This all seems fine to me.

I haven't used pypandoc but based on a cursory glance, it seems like a Python interface to the functionality available at pandoc's command line. If this high-level interface is all that's needed, relying on the pandoc CLI may be easier to integrate into a build system.

The core bits of unicodeit look pretty usable. I think some big regex like it provides is needed and it looks like they have done the tedious work.