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
While making changes on both this repo and on baggage, I noticed that our text style is quite inconsistent. I would like to try to make some decisions on our preferred style so we can apply it globally to our specifications.
Each sentence on its own line. This allows for pull request reviews to make suggestions to individual sentences which is a natural unit of language without changing the line breaks for unrelated lines.
This is a full sentence.
This is another full sentence, which is much longer but still continues to be on the same line.
Reviewing a pull request with this style seems much easier in my opinion.
Very long lines can still be soft-wrapped by an editor if the reader wishes.
Referencing external RFCs
I personally like the regular markdown link syntax. The linked RFC is still included in the bibliography and it reads more naturally to me. It is much easier to link RFC0000 Section x.y than to read a full URL and linking only to the bibliography is annoying for the user who clicks the link to go to the section referenced.
Referencing fields
I like to use the inline code with markdown link like trace-id, but this is probably the most inconsistent aspect of our specification.
While making changes on both this repo and on baggage, I noticed that our text style is quite inconsistent. I would like to try to make some decisions on our preferred style so we can apply it globally to our specifications.
Line breaks
Referencing external RFCs
Referencing fields
trace-id
trace-id
Others?
There may be other style inconsistencies I haven't noticed that others have. Please feel free to comment them
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: