You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We lack standards for some key style issues in the documentation. While these issues are less critical than good content and structure of the docs, consistency gives the docs a more professional look. General proposal is to accept the recommendations in the Google developer documentation style guide, which is comprehensive and reasonable.
American vs. British spelling. We currently have a mix and the Spell checker accepts both. Recommend requiring American spelling. (See Google Spelling and [Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Spelling) )
Sentence structure when telling the reader to do something. Recommend defining what to do before the instructions. (See Google Sentence structure
Should we recommend timeless documentation that avoids words and phrases that anchor the docs in time? Recommend yes. See Google Timeless documentation
Do we agree to use the Google developer documentation style guide in general? The Contributing Guide currently has this recommendation but we should officially agree to it as a community.
New doc tools cannot handle hyphens in headers. This means we cannot use strings like "pre- or post-deployment" or "pre-defined" in headers. This does not preclude using the hyphenated terms in text but recommend favoring consistency so need to use "pre/post deployment" and "predefined"
DoD
Mostly updates to Contributing Guide, which should be brief with lines to the appropriate Google page:
Contributing Guide defines practice for capitalization in titles
Contributing Guide defines practice for American and British spelling
Word list has table of Kubernetes terms showing capitalization
Spell checker modified to exclude British spellings
Contributing Guide defines use of "please" in instructions
Description
We lack standards for some key style issues in the documentation. While these issues are less critical than good content and structure of the docs, consistency gives the docs a more professional look. General proposal is to accept the recommendations in the Google developer documentation style guide, which is comprehensive and reasonable.
Issues
DoD
Mostly updates to Contributing Guide, which should be brief with lines to the appropriate Google page:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: