[explainers] How should an Explainer describe out of scope aspects?
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Activity status
- Stale
- Domain
- documentation
Research direction
Review the Explainers README, the existing explainers, and amount.md, using the discussion in pull request 23 as context. Experiment with documenting out-of-scope aspects in several existing explainers and compare the resulting patterns. Done means reporting empirical examples in this issue and, if a consistent pattern emerges, documenting guidance in the README.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
Explainers start with a description of user problem(s) to be solved. Depending on the problem(s), the boundaries of what to solve or not may be unclear, or solutions for subset(s) of the problem(s) may be significantly simpler or more practical than solutions for the full possibilities of the problem(s).
We should document a way (or ways) for Explainer authors to explicitly communicate what they consider out of scope for a particular Explainer, either by description or specific example(s).
For example @martinthomson noted that currencies may not meet the documented criteria for solutions for the amount explainer.
Here are a few ways to document such out of scope aspects:
- A brief “Out of scope: (inline list of examples and/or classes thereof).” sentence at the end of section 1, to explicitly communicate what problems the explainer is not trying to solve
- A brief "Out of scope: solutions that (inline list of undesired characteristics, dependencies, or classes thereof)" sentence or paragraph at the end of section 2, to explicitly communicate what kinds of solutions the explainer is not exploring
- Rephrasing the out of scope aspect as a caveat of a proposed solution, and adding that to section 8 caveats, shortcomings, etc.
A good next step here would be some amount of experimenting with adding out of scope aspects to existing explainers in this repo, then commenting on this issue with those empirical examples. If good patterns emerge, we can document them as explicit guidance in our Explainers README.
(Originally published at: https://tantek.com/2024/222/b1/explainers-describe-out-of-scope)
- Dominant language
- No language data
- Stars
- 25
- Forks
- 15
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Similar issues
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 75/100
-
certification
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 80/100
-
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 85/100
bisq-network/support#2181 ·
-
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 85/100
-
tutorial updates Open
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 80/100
sveltejs/svelte.dev#2241 ·