Although the title already has a "name" entry, this commit replicates
the name as "title", and adds a "description" entry, both of which
are shared across common, official Jekyll plugins like jekyll-feed
and jekyll-sitemap.
This allows the feed and sitemap to properly output the title and
description in various places.
Jekyll Sitemap (https://github.com/jekyll/jekyll-sitemap) is an
official Jekyll plugin, which should serve as a drop-in replacement
for the existing sitemap.xml. The resulting sitemap should be largely
similar to the existing sitemap, but with a shared, battle-tested
template that accounts for all sorts of edge cases, handles collections
and static files, etc.
Jekyll Feed (https://github.com/jekyll/jekyll-feed) is an official
Jekyll plugin which should replicate the existing feed nearly
identically, but with a shared, battle-tested template that
accounts for all sorts of edge cases like relative links in feed
entries.
It should be a drop in replacement and "just work" without any
additional configuration.
The GitHub Pages Gem (https://github.com/github/pages-gem)
is a meta-gem that does two things:
1. It locks dependencies to the same version used by GitHub Pages
ensuring that when you build the site locally, you're using the same
version of plugins and other dependencies used in production.
2. When loaded as part of the :jekyll_plugins group, it allows
the Gem to set certain configuration defaults and overrides
(such as activating default plugins) to ensure, once again
that your local preview replicates the production version
as closely as possible.
Things looked odd due to the padding on code blocks; they sat 2px above the text surrounding them. This PR will fix that by aligning inline code blocks, and the text surrounding them, on their baseline.
There are too many horizontal lines in the documentation, which makes knowing which things are headings (h2) and which are sub-headings (h3) almost impossible.
I've tidied up the weights a little to make it more obvious and trimmed some excess whitespace. Ultimately I think a typographer's eye on the single choice of font-face (perhaps a serif for headings?) would be worthwhile.