Temp commit of further glossarization changes

peps/pep-0639.rst

@@ -486,8 +486,9 @@ As it adds new fields, this PEP updates the Core Metadata version to 2.4.
 Add ``License-Expression`` field
 ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
 
-The ``License-Expression`` optional field is specified to contain a text string
-that is a valid SPDX license expression, as defined herein.
+The ``License-Expression`` optional :term:`Core Metadata field>`
+is specified to contain a text string
+that is a valid SPDX :term:`license expression`, as defined herein.
 
 Publishing tools SHOULD issue an informational warning if this field is
 missing, and MAY raise an error. Build tools MAY issue a similar warning,
@@ -501,7 +502,7 @@ Version 2.2 or a later compatible version.
 
 When used in the ``License-Expression`` field and as a specialization of
 the SPDX license expression definition, a license expression can use the
-following license identifiers:
+following :term:`license identifier`\s:
 
 - Any SPDX-listed license short-form identifiers that are published in the
   `SPDX License List <spdxlist_>`__, version 3.17 or any later compatible
@@ -533,10 +534,12 @@ a valid license expression, build and publishing tools:
   the normalization process results in changes to the
   ``License-Expression`` field contents.
 
-For all newly-upload distributions that include a
-``License-Expression`` field, the `Python Package Index (PyPI) <pypi_>`__ MUST
+For all newly-upload :term:`distribution archive`\s
+that include a ``License-Expression`` field,
+the `Python Package Index (PyPI) <pypi_>`__ MUST
 validate that it contains a valid, case-normalized license expression with
-valid identifiers (as defined here) and MUST reject uploads that do not.
+valid identifiers (as :ref:`defined here <639-license-expression-definition>`)
+and MUST reject uploads that do not.
 PyPI MAY reject an upload for using a deprecated license identifier,
 so long as it was deprecated as of the above-mentioned SPDX License List
 version.
@@ -547,34 +550,38 @@ version.
 Add ``License-File`` field
 ''''''''''''''''''''''''''
 
-Each instance of the ``License-File`` optional field is specified to contain
-the string representation of the path in the project source tree, relative to
-the project root directory, of a license-related file.
+Each instance of the ``License-File`` optional :term:`Core Metadata field>`
+is specified to contain
+the string representation of the path in the :term:`project source tree`,
+relative to the :term:`project root directory`, of a license-related file.
 It is a multi-use field that may appear zero or
 more times, each instance listing the path to one such file. Files specified
-under this field could include license text, author/attribution information,
+by this field could include license text, author/attribution information,
 or other legal notices that need to be distributed with the package.
 
 As :ref:`specified by this PEP <639-spec-project-formats>`, its value
-is also that file's path relative to the root license directory in both
-installed projects and the standardized distribution package types.
+is also that file's path relative to the :term:`root license directory`
+in both :term:`installed project`\s
+and the standardized :term:`Distribution Package` types.
 In other legacy, non-standard or new distribution package formats and
-mechanisms of accessing and storing Core Metadata, the value MAY correspond
-to the license file path relative to a format-defined root license directory.
+mechanisms of accessing and storing :term:`Core Metadata`,
+the value MAY correspond to the license file path
+relative to a format-defined root license directory.
 Alternatively, it MAY be treated as a unique abstract key to access the
 license file contents by another means, as specified by the format.
 
-If a ``License-File`` is listed in a source or built distribution's core
-metadata, that file MUST be included in the distribution at the specified path
-relative to the root license directory, and MUST be installed with the
-distribution at that same relative path.
+If a ``License-File`` is listed in a :term:`source distribution`
+or :term:`Built Distribution`'s Core Metadata,
+that file MUST be included in the :term:`distribution archive`
+at the specified path relative to the root license directory,
+and MUST be installed with the :term:`project` at that same relative path.
 
 The specified relative path MUST be consistent between project source trees,
 source distributions (sdists), built distributions (:term:`Wheel`\s)
 and installed projects.
 Therefore, inside the root license directory, packaging tools
 MUST reproduce the directory structure under which the
-source license files are located relative to the project root.
+source license files are located relative to the project root directory.
 
 Path delimiters MUST be the forward slash character (``/``),
 and parent directory indicators (``..``) MUST NOT be used.
@@ -584,30 +591,34 @@ Build tools MAY and publishing tools SHOULD produce an informative warning
 if a built distribution's metadata contains no ``License-File`` entries,
 and publishing tools MAY but build tools MUST NOT raise an error.
 
-For all newly-uploaded distribution packages that include one or more
-``License-File`` fields and declare a ``Metadata-Version`` of ``2.4`` or
-higher, PyPI SHOULD validate that the specified files are present in all
-uploaded distributions, and MUST reject uploads that do not validate.
+For all newly-uploaded :term:`distribution archive`\s that include one or more
+``License-File`` fields in their Core Metadata
+and declare a ``Metadata-Version`` of ``2.4`` or higher,
+PyPI SHOULD validate that all specified files are present in that
+:term:`distribution archive`\s,
+and MUST reject uploads that do not validate.
 
 
 .. _639-spec-field-license:
 
 Deprecate ``License`` field
 '''''''''''''''''''''''''''
 
-The legacy unstructured-text ``License`` field is deprecated and replaced by
-the new ``License-Expression`` field. Build and publishing tools MUST raise
-an error if both these fields are present and their values are not identical,
+The legacy unstructured-text ``License`` :term:`Core Metadata field>`
+is deprecated and replaced by the new ``License-Expression`` field.
+Build and publishing tools MUST raise an error
+if both these fields are present and their values are not identical,
 including capitalization and excluding leading and trailing whitespace.
 
 If only the ``License`` field is present, such tools SHOULD issue a warning
 informing users it is deprecated and recommending ``License-Expression``
 instead.
 
-For all newly-uploaded distributions that include a
+For all newly-uploaded :term:`distribution archive`\s that include a
 ``License-Expression`` field, the `Python Package Index (PyPI) <pypi_>`__ MUST
 reject any that specify a ``License`` field and the text of which is not
-identical to that of ``License-Expression``, as defined in this section.
+identical to that of ``License-Expression``,
+as :ref:`defined here <639-license-expression-definition>`.
 
 Along with license classifiers, the ``License`` field may be removed from a
 new version of the specification in a future PEP.
@@ -618,7 +629,8 @@ new version of the specification in a future PEP.
 Deprecate license classifiers
 '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
 
-Using license `classifiers <classifiers_>`__ in the ``Classifier`` field
+Using :term:`license classifier`\s
+in the ``Classifier`` :term:`Core Metadata field>`
 (`described in the Core Metadata specification <coremetadataclassifiers_>`__)
 is deprecated and replaced by the more precise ``License-Expression`` field.