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
This RFC proposes to create a different version of the package documentation for installing and using individual packages.
Currently, the API docs are oriented around the main project and use nested import/require paths (e.g., @stdlib/math/base/special/sin. To facilitate individual package consumption, it would be nice if a user could toggle the docs and see specific instructions and examples for using individual packages (e.g., @stdlib/math-base-special-sin).
There are a couple of approaches which come to mind:
If a user has toggled to the individual package docs version, we could do README processing client-side, where we update import/require paths and add an install section after loading a README fragment from the server.
We could perform pre-processing where we generate individual package README fragments during the website build process. When a user loads individual package docs, we would fetch the individual package README fragment from the server and simply display as is to the user.
I think my preference would be the latter, if only because of SEO and less client-side load.
For preprocessing of READMEs, I think we are fairly close to being able to do this today. We just need to extract the logic found in the individual package publishing script into a separate package which we can independently consume.
Description
This RFC proposes to create a different version of the package documentation for installing and using individual packages.
Currently, the API docs are oriented around the main project and use nested import/require paths (e.g.,
@stdlib/math/base/special/sin
. To facilitate individual package consumption, it would be nice if a user could toggle the docs and see specific instructions and examples for using individual packages (e.g.,@stdlib/math-base-special-sin
).There are a couple of approaches which come to mind:
I think my preference would be the latter, if only because of SEO and less client-side load.
Related Issues
No.
Questions
No.
Other
No.
Checklist
RFC:
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: