-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6.4k
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
Standardized diagram keywords #4542
Comments
Needs to be discussed here separate. This is the current detectors that we have, new changes should be made in the parser jison files, and the detectors, while maintaining backwards compatibility.
|
I think the proposed keywords look great, but a quick question about two-word keywords: should we also support the full version? Or the current ones are fine? i.e., I'm aware almost no one would use the full keyword, but just it's just a question came to my mind, and maybe we face in the future. You have forgotten For
As far as I know, EDIT: I'm not really sure about seperating them; it would show that they are separate diagrams. At the end, there would be only file for there all syntaxes. It would be great if we separated logic into different files similar to |
I agree: keeping only |
In cases where we "need" to support 2 words,
I'm not certain how we should handle those. Especially elk. But flowchart ELK, is simply a different layout engine, so maybe we could support
I'm not much familiar with C4 diagrams, but |
|
I wasn't referring to adding whitespace, just listing them out, but I agree with you,
Yeah, it seems like this is a good approach. |
So to summarize what we need to change:
What else? I'll work update some while I have time. Add by adding these changes, will it affect the structure stated in #4499? Do you have something in that? Even if our current diagrams didn't faced this issue, I think we should discuss this case since it might occur with I'm aware that the root message is kind of outdated, but I haven't been receiving any feedback on the suggested ideas. Could I assume that they have been approved with those likes? @sidharthv96 |
I'm not familiar with those |
Two observations. Firstly I'm not sure about "er" for Entity Relationship. It seems that is being overly abbreviated to the point of making its purpose obscure to new users, or users whose American English fluency is low. I'd proffer the suggestion of "Entity". Secondly, and this is probably more from my poor understanding of open source. Is there a preferred or defined obsolescence process? Or is the scope for this issue just the addition of new terms? |
@grimley517 I think issue is about right. Or if you have any other suggestions on renaming keywords then it probably can be referred via "syntax change" issue. There is no exact process on eliminating legacy code / syntax / options, so you feel that none of the existing issues fit your ideas open a new one. You may also start a discussion if it is kinda sketchy and later or we can create an issue based on that. |
It would be great if we standardized diagram keywords, because some diagrams just have the actual keyword:
...etc.
And some have additional word:
...etc.
I think this addition wouldn't really help; it's just making the keyword longer.
Originally posted by @Yokozuna59 in #4499 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: