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

docs: investigation on display names #66

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

mmrj
Copy link
Contributor

@mmrj mmrj commented May 3, 2024

SC-242572

These changes would bring the current display names (used, for example, here) up-to-date with how we otherwise refer to each SDK in the product docs:

  • omit the type (client, server, edge) except when there is ambiguity
  • when there is ambiguity, use (client-side) or (server-side)

Let me know what you recommend as next steps here -- happy to update the names in individual SDK repos, or have this PR be used as a spec to programmatically update the existing names in the ld-docs-private repo's EndOfLife method.

"cpp-server-sdk": "C++ Server SDK",
"dotnet-client-sdk": ".NET Client SDK",
"dotnet-server-sdk": ".NET Server SDK",
"cpp-client-sdk": "C++ (client-side) SDK",
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The linter error makes is sound like () are not allowed in this string?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I can fix this in another PR

@cwaldren-ld
Copy link
Collaborator

cwaldren-ld commented May 6, 2024

What we can do here is use this as a spec to update the individual repos (as this file is generated daily from the repos.)

While we're at it, I'm wondering if we should update the READMEs to be consistent as well? For example:

  • Vercel README "Vercel Edge SDK"
  • Go README "Server-side SDK for Go"
  • Rust README "Server-side SDK for Rust"

I can see those being more of a description than the name of the SDK in the last two cases

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants