Employ consistent typesetting/formatting
----------------------------------------
Key: MSITE-281
URL: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MSITE-281
Project: Maven 2.x Site Plugin
Issue Type: Improvement
Affects Versions: 2.0-beta-6
Reporter: Benjamin Bentmann
Priority: Minor
Attachments: site.patch
Well, typesetting/formatting surely belongs to the "peanuts" of life. This
issue is a small attempt to raise sensibility for this topic.
The attached patch contains various minor (mostly typographic) changes intended
to improve readability/consistency of the documentation. Some of the rules I
chose to follow are surely controversial and a matter of taste:
- Hyperlinks should be readable/understandable without their surrounding
context (a best practice for web design, e.g. see [Stanford Online
Accessibility Program|http://soap.stanford.edu/show.php?contentid=46])
- Headline style capitalization for page/section titles (see also
[Capitalization of Headings and
Titles|http://www.tc-forum.org/topicmai/ml03capi.htm])
- Double quotation marks instead of single quots for quoted text ([Quotation
Marks and Direct
Quotations|http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/department/docs/punctuation/node30.html])
- Proper casing for acronyms (e.g. POM instead of pom, but {{scp}} if one wants
to refer to the protocol part of a URL literally)
- Monospaced font for file/path names, URLs, plugin goals, command prompts
- Uppercase first letter for plugin names (it might just be my German habit,
but I consider "the Clean Plugin" more understandable than "the clean plugin"
since I can realize the reference to a name more quickly)
Indepedently from the patch getting rejected or not, it might by worth to
create some guidelines (house-style) that Maven developers can follow for their
documentation, similar to the [Maven Plugin Documentation
Standard|http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Maven+Plugin+Documentation] and
the code formatter style.
@Dennis: I did not re-order the plugin goals in {{index.apt}} this time,
although I would recommend so. To me, the current order seems quite random,
e.g. why is site:site listed after site:deploy when one usually would invoke
site:site first? I consider the following order (not optimal but just) more
intuitiv as it groups related goals:
- site:site
- site:site-deploy
- site:run
- site:stage
- site:stage-deploy
- site:attach-descriptor
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
