[docs] [revamp] - Beefing up Vale

[erinkcochran87]

Summary & Motivation

This PR beefs up our Vale implementation with some custom rules and vocabularies. The README for this will be updated in a subsequent PR.

How I Tested These Changes

eyes, local

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for dagsterapidocs ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	dd59da1
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/dagsterapidocs/deploys/66c4c01e6735960008f0b0b0
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-23754--dagsterapidocs.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[github-actions]

Deploy preview for dagster-docs ready!

Preview available at https://dagster-docs-nrw479zfp-elementl.vercel.app
https://erin-beefy-vale.dagster.dagster-docs.io

Direct link to changed pages:
docs/docs-beta/docs/concepts/schedules

[PedramNavid]

I ran these new styles against the existing docs-beta content. Generally looks fine, however when adding new linting rules, generally we want to make sure we don't introduce errors that weren't there before.

Here's my thoughts:

• Readability is a hard metric to measure for people. E.g. Intro is at 15, what does it mean for it to be 8? I would suggest we keep readability as part of the human review process and not an automated metric
• Removing API from an accept.txt causes a heading like # Using API connections to fail. Same for ETL and SDA
• A lot of the Gerund errors are from the seeded sections you had added. We should either remove this rule, or fix them all as part of this PR.

[erinkcochran87]

Readability is a hard metric to measure for people. E.g. Intro is at 15, what does it mean for it to be 8? I would suggest we keep readability as part of the human review process and not an automated metric

@PedramNavid Thanks for catching this - I was tinkering around and forgot to remove it.

Removing API from an accept.txt causes a heading like # Using API connections to fail. Same for ETL and SDA

I'll look into this. For SDA, are you talking about Software-defined Assets? If so, we shouldn't be using this acronym as we deprecated the term.

A lot of the Gerund errors are from the seeded sections you had added. We should either remove this rule, or fix them all as part of this PR.

Agreed! I didn't know about the translation issue (the reason behind this rule), so I'll fix the headings.

[PedramNavid]

We don't translate our docs so we can also remove the rule if needed.

If we deprecated SDAs lets add a replacement rule