[AlanHK]

Originally Posted by Sella174

Not sure if this will solve the problem, but in the aforementioned guide under Section 14, dictionaries are discussed.

It's a novel with a glossary of technical terms, so no.

I do not see what is happening as being Amazon's fault. Rather I would (and am) blaming the W3C for derailing HTML. For how long have people been screaming for a <footnote> tag? Ten, twenty years? Forget it, because social media and games get preference and they have no use for footnotes, endnotes, summaries, etc.

Of course it's their fault: they create a footnote from my text because they imagine that's what I might be doing, not because I asked for one. Their guidelines have "Amazon requires formatting footnotes with bi-directional hyperlinks". Which is fine. But then the arrogant jerks make the reverse also true. I can see their motive to automagically enable older books with bidirectional footnotes to use popup footnotes. But they provide no way to override their assumption.

They say: "Non-footnote links should use the format A links to B and B links to C instead."
As above, I tried that and it did not work.

As an aside, for correctly structured HTML, your glossary should be in the form of a definition list (<dl>). I see that Kindle understands it.

Semantically, yes, and looks fine on a monitor, but on a portrait 6" screen not so great. It puts the term on its own line, and indents the definition, wasting a lot of space on a small page. There would be much less text per screen.
I care about how it looks, not how a hypothetical bot might parse it.

I was using this for style:

.gloss {
    text-indent: -1.5em;
    margin-top: 0.5em;
    margin-left: 1.5em;
}