Lack of consistency with commands in headings

[nus-pe-bot]

Note from the teaching team: This bug was reported during the Part II (Evaluating Documents) stage of the PE. You may reject this bug if it is not related to the quality of documentation.

---

In the DG some section headers included use a code block whereas other section headers do not use a code block. A standard format should have been decided on and kept consistent throughout the DG. Further the capitalization of the command should match that used within the application to prevent confusion. For example instead of Edit, edit could have been used instead.

Note that certain headers use a code block for the command while others do not.

---

_{[original: nus-cs2103-AY2021S2/pe-interim#1954] [original labels: severity.Low type.DocumentationBug]}

[glennljs]

Team's Response

The difference is that in the first section showed, the section is entirely and explicitly focused on the Edit command. With no ambiguity, we believe there is no need to explicitly show that the command as a code block.

However, for the latter section, the Autocomplete feature references other methods (i.e. Edit and Eedit). In this case, to prevent ambiguity of the method header, we labelled the referenced methods as code blocks.

Duplicate status (if any):

--