I have to admit I’ve always avoided going too much into detail regarding style because it makes it much harder for people inexperienced into contributing to actually contribute (A style guide can very often lead to a ‘oh, I am not good enough to contribute, I have no idea what a passive sentence is’, while said person might just have a knack for explaining things), but I understand this might be confusing for people trying to remove typos and grammar errors.
The most I do is to try and have the English corrected and get contributors to avoid ‘comic book dialogue’ where every other sentence is bolded and/or ended with an exclamation mark.
- This is very specific to the sentence. Contracting or not contracting, like Ahab says, changed emphasis by virtue of changing the rhythm of the sentence, and thus not something I would want to poke at too much.
- This is caused by the fact that the actions in Krita are called ‘New Document’. I am uncertain what is best here, because on one hand you want to familiarize the reader with the actions and verbiage as they appear in the program and thus not change the gestalt of the words too much, but on the other hand, it doesn’t make sense as English.
- I have gone back and forth on this one. On one hand it is the manual of krita, on the other hand Krita Manual is what I put on the epub cover.
A part of me has been wondering if we can use gitlab’s CI system (that is, a way to do some machinated checks on contributions) to run language tool on contributions and thus have a more unified style, but at that moment we’ll need to make decisions on what is sensible for the style of the manual too.