Minor doc fixups (#10)

Co-authored-by: smaillet <25911635+smaillet@users.noreply.github.com>

Author: smaillet

README.md

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ This repo includes support for versioning numbers. This support includes:
           build numbering. It is NOT a CSemVer but IS a SemVer.
 
 ## Status
-![NuGet](https://img.shields.io/nuget/dt/Ubiquity.NET.Versioning.svg)
+[![NuGet Version](https://img.shields.io/nuget/v/Ubiquity.NET.Versioning)](https://www.nuget.org/packages/Ubiquity.NET.Versioning)![NuGet](https://img.shields.io/nuget/dt/Ubiquity.NET.Versioning.svg)  
 ![PR/CI Work Flow Status](https://img.shields.io/github/actions/workflow/status/UbiquityDotNET/Ubiquity.NET.Versioning/pr-build.yml?label=PR%2FCI%20Build%20Status)
 ![Release Work Flow Status](https://img.shields.io/github/actions/workflow/status/UbiquityDotNET/Ubiquity.NET.Versioning/release-build.yml?label=Release%20Build%20Status)
 
@@ -62,4 +62,4 @@ Documentation on building and general maintenance of this repo are provided in t
 
 ----
 <sup><a id="footnote_1">1</a></sup>See: [This issue](https://github.com/CK-Build/csemver.org/issues/2) which was reported upon
-testing this library and found inconsistencies.
+testing this library and found ambiguities.

docfx/versioning-lib/index.md

@@ -3,10 +3,13 @@ The Ubiquity.NET.Versioning library provides types to support use of versioning
 1) [Semantic Versioning](https://semver.org)
 2) [Constrained Semantic Versioning](https://csemver.org)
     - Including Continuous Integration (CI) via CSemVer-CI
+    - Including FileVersion QUAD representation
+    - Including OrderedVersion integral representation.
 
 It is viable as a standalone package to allow validation of or comparisons to versions
 reported at runtime. (Especially from native interop that does not support package
-dependencies or versioning at runtime.)
+dependencies or versioning at runtime.) The [Ubiquity.NET.Versioning.Build.Tasks](https://www.nuget.org/packages/Ubiquity.NET.Versioning.Build.Tasks)
+is a companion project that implements automated build support for CSemVer.
 
 ## Example
 ``` C#

src/Ubiquity.NET.Versioning.UT/ParsedBuildVersionXmlTests.cs

@@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
 // -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 using System;
+using System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis;
 using System.IO;
 using System.Xml.Linq;
 
@@ -83,6 +84,7 @@ private static readonly XDocument InvalidAttributeXml
                     )
                  );
 
+        [SuppressMessage( "StyleCop.CSharp.NamingRules", "SA1310:Field names should not contain underscore", Justification = "Underscores substitute for otherwise invalid delimiter" )]
         private static readonly XDocument Xml_5_0_4
             = new( new XElement("BuildVersionData",
                        new XAttribute("BuildMajor", "5"),

src/Ubiquity.NET.Versioning.UT/ValidationWithTask.cs

@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ public void ValidateRepoAssemblyVersion( )
             // NOTE: Concept of a CI build used here (and in CSemVer[-CI]) is anything that is NOT
             //       a release build. It does not distinguish between local, PR, or "nightly" etc...
             //       That information is lost in creation of the FileVersionQuad form anyway and
-            //       only a single bit represents a CSemVer or CSemVer-CI.
+            //       only a single bit represents a CI build.
             BuildKind buildKind = GetBuildKind();
             bool isCIBuild = buildKind != BuildKind.ReleaseBuild;
 
@@ -88,8 +88,9 @@ public void ValidateRepoAssemblyVersion( )
                 // This is where the Patch+1 behavior is validated against the task
                 // Both this library and the generated version for this library (from the task)
                 // should agree on the build and base build. Bug: https://github.com/UbiquityDotNET/CSemVer.GitBuild/issues/64
-                // on the task deals with the incorrect assumption that baseBuild == build and
-                // generally ignores the Patch+1 requirement.
+                // on the task dealt with the previously incorrect assumption that baseBuild == build and
+                // generally ignored the Patch+1 requirement. That has since been fixed but worth keeping in mind
+                // as this point has caused a great deal of confusion.
                 Assert.AreEqual( expectedVersion.Major, actualCI.Major );
                 Assert.AreEqual( expectedVersion.Minor, actualCI.Minor );
                 Assert.AreEqual( expectedVersion.Patch, actualCI.Patch );