Skip to content
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

Produce a 'style guide' for how Nunjucks documentation is written #3913

Open
1 of 7 tasks
querkmachine opened this issue Jul 6, 2023 · 0 comments
Open
1 of 7 tasks
Labels
documentation User requests new documentation or improvements to existing documentation epic Epics are used in planning project boards to group related stories

Comments

@querkmachine
Copy link
Member

querkmachine commented Jul 6, 2023

What

Currently there are various inconsistencies in how we write documentation for the Nunjucks parameters exposed by components. Having discussed this internally, this seems to be because there is a lack of clarity about how certain elements should be described or formatted.

I imagine the most relevant place to put this would be in the contributor docs.

Why

We want our documentation to be consistent and for contributors to know how we expect things to be written—both inside and outside of the team.

Who needs to work on this

  • Developers
  • Content designer or technical writer

Who needs to review this

  • Developers
  • Content designer or technical writer

Done when

Research and decision making

Implementation

@querkmachine querkmachine added the documentation User requests new documentation or improvements to existing documentation label Jul 6, 2023
@kellylee-gds kellylee-gds added the epic Epics are used in planning project boards to group related stories label Aug 7, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation User requests new documentation or improvements to existing documentation epic Epics are used in planning project boards to group related stories
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants