Improve cycling docs #454
Improve cycling docs #454
Conversation
| Format 3: ``R[limit?]/[datetime]/[interval]`` | ||
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It feels a bit awkward talking about format 3, then 4, then 1. But that's probably the most sensible order
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps a quick note just underneath the title giving a reason? Especially as the first sentence is that reason anyway...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've added some suggestions - I've approved because I think that the changes are a good idea, but not worth blocking the PR for (especially the idea of turning examples into tables which would require a certain amount of effort).
I think that the English language translations could be useful to some readers.
| Format 3: ``R[limit?]/[datetime]/[interval]`` | ||
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps a quick note just underneath the title giving a reason? Especially as the first sentence is that reason anyway...
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | ||
|
|
||
| Another supported recurrence form is: | ||
| ``R[limit?]/[interval]/[datetime]`` (format number 4 in the ISO 8601 standard). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A second reason why the section order and the format number don't match to add to the note at the top of the Format3 section?
Sibling to cylc/cylc-flow#4554
Also addresses comment from Element:
Requirements check-list
CONTRIBUTING.mdand added my name as a Code Contributor.