-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 888
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Change Typographical Conventions to Style Guide #2633
Comments
"Semantic linefeeds" smell like an overall negative to me:
|
Consider the following rst sample source: This is the first paragraph and it consists of one sentence on one line.
This is the second paragraph and it consists of five sentences on five lines.
This is an example of what I intend with modified semantic linefeeds.
One complete sentence per line.
This would be applied only in narrative documentation.
It would not—*absolutely not*—have any silly linefeeds after clauses, lists, Oxford commas, or colons as in the following example:
* This is a list of things.
* Fruits include apples, oranges, papayas, bananas, apricots, plums, nectarines, peaches, pears, and mangoes.
* Asparagus is a vegetable.
This is the first paragraph and it consists of one sentence on one line. This is the second paragraph and it consists of five sentences on five lines. This is an example of what I intend with modified semantic linefeeds. One complete sentence per line. This would be applied only in narrative documentation. It would not—absolutely not—have any silly linefeeds after clauses, lists, Oxford commas, or colons as in the following example:
I hope that clarifies my intent. |
Here is an example of a horrendous diff because of rewrapping to 79 columns, as mentioned above. Can you find what was changed? |
If we want to do one paragraph per line that's fine with me. I'm also semi-okay with one sentence per line but paragraph sounds better to me. I am absolutely against just randomly breaking sentences into lines for "semantic reasons" because no one will understand the rules. I'm also fine with keeping the current 79-character width requirement instead. Also note that this only applies to rst docs, and NOT docstrings that use rst in code (they are both human consumable as well as in code files with strict 79-char limits). I would also be against applying these rules to README.rst and HACKING.rst which are very often human consumable. |
I put some thought into this and rubber ducked it on IRC. I've updated the issue description, and created a detailed checklist at the top. I think this would work well for everyone. Feedback appreciated. |
+1 for terminating paragraph with a new line. Because that's how all word processors since mid 80s have functioned. That's how we were taught in the school on the sixth grade. Enforcing a line length makes it harder to edit paragraphs and doesn't make sense in the context of prose, as all sane editors, including Github, have been able to wrap lines tidily forever. Even vim. Instead, too short lines make it hard for people, who are used to wider text editor areas, work with the text as they spend extra time to manually adjust line length to make it look nice. Let's leave line length discussion to source code files and let's write English as we were taught in school. |
@tseaver @bertjwregeer I've updated the checklist, the significant change being this item:
If you have no objections, I will proceed on this item. |
Work for this issue is in the branch style-guide. |
Closed by #2838 |
Establish a Style Guide for Pyramid narrative documentation as a reference. It excludes docstrings or comments in code.
The Style Guide would not be implemented immediately over all pages, but would be implemented as each section or page of the narrative documentation is reviewed or updated over time.
Note: "Adopt" in the list below is in reference to the Plone ReST Styleguide.
References
Changes
::
, and make it required to specify language.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: