<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hello Campbell,<br>
<br>
Fundamentals is not out of scope - because I've added few new terms
and these are even in scope of the glossary. as it is now.
<p>Terms could easily added in a centralized - it just delays the
clean up to later. Terms are not added often. <br>
No one added a term in probably more than six years (excluding
my 2 terms).</p>
<p>It has not to be maintained - all the terms I replaced were
already wrong, when they have been added years ago.</p>
<p> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.blender.org/manual/glossary/index.html#term-refraction">https://www.blender.org/manual/glossary/index.html#term-refraction</a><br>
(the speed of light is absolutely constant)<br>
</p>
<p>Blender is not a small software program with a bunch of internal
name terms, where a central glossary might be sufficient,<br>
but not for a complex software suite.<br>
<br>
</p>
<p>Contra central glossary:</p>
<p>Difficult (impossible) to clean up:</p>
<p>- Finding terms that shouldn't be in the glossary.<br>
- Assimilation of the classification of terms.<br>
</p>
<p> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.blender.org/manual/glossary/index.html#term-anti-aliasing">https://www.blender.org/manual/glossary/index.html#term-anti-aliasing</a></p>
<p>A part of the definition is already taken up by the
classification:</p>
<p> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.blender.org/manual/glossary/index.html#term-environment-map">https://www.blender.org/manual/glossary/index.html#term-environment-map</a><br>
</p>
<p>A lot of links are needed and the terms are not comparable,
because they are scattered:<br>
</p>
<p> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.blender.org/manual/glossary/index.html#term-topology">https://www.blender.org/manual/glossary/index.html#term-topology</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.blender.org/manual/glossary/index.html#term-straight-alpha">https://www.blender.org/manual/glossary/index.html#term-straight-alpha</a><br>
</p>
<p>Extended content looks bad:</p>
<p> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.blender.org/manual/glossary/index.html#term-non-manifold">https://www.blender.org/manual/glossary/index.html#term-non-manifold</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.blender.org/manual/glossary/index.html#term-color-space">https://www.blender.org/manual/glossary/index.html#term-color-space</a><br>
</p>
<p>Extended content like images is impossible.<br>
</p>
<p>It's not readable top to bottom.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
We could also have both:<br>
The old terms sorted in.<br>
The newly created ones in a glossary called "new".<br>
(like the unsorted bookmarks in a browser)<br>
</p>
<p>So I'm asking for a test run. It's easy revertible.<br>
</p>
<p>Tobias</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 16.06.2016 um 16:43 schrieb Tobias
Heinke:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:74f69236-9bb9-2df5-9fd2-6fe0e5856d88@t-online.de"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>Hey Campbell,<br>
</p>
<p>Thanks for the reply.</p>
<p>As I said, linking to terms still works and the definitions are
still compact.<br>
Searching through the terms is possible thanks to the index.<br>
</p>
<p>The Blender Manual never was a pure software manual
(specification), it can't because of the audience it addresses.<br>
And Funda is even a step into the direction making the manual
more about the software <br>
by separating the non Blender specific content.</p>
<p>The problem of a centralized glossary is it get messier with
every new term added and cleaning it up is not fun.</p>
<p>Hierarchy occurs naturally and is currently expressed by link
between terms:</p>
<p> Anti-aliasing: MSAA, FSAA...<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.blender.org/manual/glossary/index.html#term-anti-aliasing">https://www.blender.org/manual/glossary/index.html#term-anti-aliasing</a><br>
</p>
<br>
Non of the paper I cited sofar belongs to that category technical
paper,<br>
in the sense of detailed information about the implementation of a
technique.<br>
<p>I disagree, that these papers are just interesting for
developers.<br>
The citation fulfills the different purposes of pioneer papers
and recommended literature. <br>
Why these pioneer papers have to be cited I have written in the
previous mail. <br>
</p>
Fundamentals doesn't becomes outdated:<br>
Eric Veach PhD thesis "Robust Monte Carlo methods for light
transport simulation" from 1997 still holds up.<br>
And Blinn will still be the one who introduced bump mapping to 3D
CG.<br>
c.f. <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://old.siggraph.org/publications/seminal-graphics.shtml">http://old.siggraph.org/publications/seminal-graphics.shtml</a><br>
<br>
Tobias<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 15.06.2016 um 16:11 schrieb
Campbell Barton:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEcf3Nzo0tGdnqu+KWrN8_5uKPg19BHRy7qLQxHz5P5ORqFYuw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Am quite against replacing the glossary,
in computer graphics their are many cryptic terms (FSAA, SSS, gimbal
lock, ngon... etc),
As an author you can write :term:`FSAA` which links to the glossary,
if the term is missing, you get a warning and you can add it.
The descriptions generally short and to the point, with links to
expanded information where appropriate.
There is also no need to manage page hierarchy, add new categories,
think about where each term *belongs*.
its a big list which is easy to search and linked to as needed.
What you suggest is a more general document on computer graphics
fundamentals which is OK,
but outside the scope of a software manual.
>From reading what you have so far, its quite esoteric from a user
perspective and more of interest to developers, with links links to
technical papers on each topic.
People interested in such papers can find it themselves searching
online and don't need us to spend time on a document for this, which
is likely to be outdated in a few years anyway.
eg:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://blender-manual.readthedocs.io/en/testing/fundamentals/physics/phy_matter.html">http://blender-manual.readthedocs.io/en/testing/fundamentals/physics/phy_matter.html</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://blender-manual.readthedocs.io/en/testing/fundamentals/computer/com_light.html">http://blender-manual.readthedocs.io/en/testing/fundamentals/computer/com_light.html</a>
Or, if there is some need for a document like this, I think its
different enough from a software reference manual,
that it can be maintained as a separately (which the manual could link
to, when it makes sense, as with any other web site).
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 5:57 AM, Tobias Heinke
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:heinke.tobias@t-online.de"><heinke.tobias@t-online.de></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Campbell,
Yes, to replace the glossary.
First I want to keep the glossary parallel to Fundamentals and then
dissolve it into Funda term by term.
Tobias
Am 14.06.2016 um 19:23 schrieb Campbell Barton:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Tobias,
are you proposing
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://blender-manual.readthedocs.io/en/testing/fundamentals/index.html">http://blender-manual.readthedocs.io/en/testing/fundamentals/index.html</a>
be moved to <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.blender.org/manual/">https://www.blender.org/manual/</a>
and maintained in our subversion repository along with the rest of the manual?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Bf-docboard mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Bf-docboard@blender.org">Bf-docboard@blender.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard">https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Bf-docboard mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Bf-docboard@blender.org">Bf-docboard@blender.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard">https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>