docs: update CN and EN getting-started documents

[yzeng25]

What this PR does / why we need it:

This change fixes the problems on 'getting-started' page both in Chinese and in English:

• Fix issue docs: in-page jumping failed on CN and EN getting-started page #4554
• Added a summary section on the top of this page.
• Listed out 3-step procedure in summary section.
• To avoid calling one thing with multiple names, we decided to replace "Upstream" with "Upstream service", and replace "上游" and "后端服务" with "上游服务" (fixed after review comments), and call 'Route' "路由".
• Removed '$' in front of each code block, because it creates problem when users try to copy the codes or commands down, '$' is not a part of the command, but it gets copied down, it is annoying.
• Fixed some mix uses of punctuations，replaced (,./;'') with （，。、；’）.
• Fixed sections' titles. Titles usually should follow 'verb + noun(s)' pattern.
• Removed unnecessary sentences.
• Replaced "注意" with a pattern supported by docusaurus, to make these "注意" more notable. Reference: https://docusaurus.io/docs/next/markdown-features/admonitions

Pre-submission checklist:

• Did you explain what problem does this PR solve? Or what new features have been added?
• Have you added corresponding test cases?
• Have you modified the corresponding document?
• Is this PR backward compatible? If it is not backward compatible, please discuss on the mailing list first

[juzhiyuan]

Chinese LGTM, and do we need to update the English version in the same PR?

cc @spacewander

[yzeng25]

Chinese LGTM, and do we need to update the English version in the same PR?

cc @spacewander

Yeah sure.

[spacewander]

Yes, change EN doc at the same time can avoid content mismatch.

[yzeng25]

Yes, change EN doc at the same time can avoid content mismatch.

OK, will deliver.

[Yiyiyimu]

I think it's not appropriate to call it "后端服务" since there is no "前端". Maybe call it "上游" is more accurate

[yzeng25]

I think it's not appropriate to call it "后端服务" since there is no "前端". Maybe call it "上游" is more accurate

Ok, I will fix them in both languages.

[yzeng25]

@Yiyiyimu @spacewander @juzhiyuan @tao12345666333 guys, please kindly give me some review opinions/comments on English 'Getting Started' document when you are available, thanks!

[tokers]

I think it's not appropriate to call it "后端服务" since there is no "前端". Maybe call it "上游" is more accurate

If we decide to use the term "上游"，then we may use it everywhere of our documentations.

By the way, a glossary might be required.

[yzeng25]

I think it's not appropriate to call it "后端服务" since there is no "前端". Maybe call it "上游" is more accurate

If we decide to use the term "上游"，then we may use it everywhere of our documentations.

By the way, a glossary might be required.

Yes, this PR uses "Upstream" everywhere in 'Getting-Started' document, except 2-3ish places where it needs to explain what is an "Upstream", or give a synonym of "Upstream".

The current situation is that "Upstream", "后端服务" and other words are referencing to the same thing with different names (Maybe they do have some tiny differences after all). Thus, it creates confusion for me to read, identify and understand this document.

This then brings up more abstracted problems:

1. Similarly, here is what I would ask: is there an "upstream" since there is no "downstream"? which of the following is more broadly accepted, "后端服务", or "上游"?
2. Where is the glossary? Yes, we definitely need a glossary to explain and define frequently used words and phrases. But it is not my top priority task yet.
3. How many other places are referencing the same thing with different names? I don't know, it is just a matter of time to find out and fix them.
4. Why this change is only made in 'Getting-Started' document'? Well, it is the very first document page or the 'entry' of all Apache APISIX documents. I want this page to be somewhat helpful and impressing.
5. Are we missing other sorts of documents? Along with Q1 and Q3, my answer is yes. We definitely need a product overview, product architecture, glossary, etc, to form a series of 'Product Introduction' documents. And we do need other series of documents as well. The reason why I am not doing this right now is that I am new to this team, and I want to find out how can I make good use of the existing documents.

Hope this clarifies your concerns.

[juzhiyuan]

Similarly, here is what I would ask: is there an "upstream" since there is no "downstream"? which of the following is more broadly accepted, "后端服务", or "上游"?

Hi, AFAIK, Upstream is used in Apache APISIX (as an Entity) and Kong (as an Upstream Object), it's more technical but not easy to understand, as a Getting Started guide, Backend Server/Target Node would be more clear and easy to know what it is. Maybe we could have a table including some description for internal words?

[juzhiyuan]

what do you think? @KishaniKandasamy @iamayushdas

[iamayushdas]

Table is a good option but what do you think , where will you be placing that table, IMO we could place them in "general"

[Yiyiyimu]

Hi, AFAIK, Upstream is used in Apache APISIX (as an Entity) and Kong (as an Upstream Object), it's more technical but not easy to understand

Hi I think the reason we call it "upstream" is mainly because nginx is calling it this way

[yzeng25]

Hi, AFAIK, Upstream is used in Apache APISIX (as an Entity) and Kong (as an Upstream Object), it's more technical but not easy to understand

Hi I think the reason we call it "upstream" is mainly because nginx is calling it this way

Cool, good to know that. It seems like a good choice to follow their pattern.

[KishaniKandasamy]

what do you think? @KishaniKandasamy @iamayushdas

Yes It is a much better way to understand internal words

[yzeng25]

Hi all, after this morning's discussion, we decided to use the term "Upstream service" and "上游服务" in our documents. PR is ready for review,.
@juzhiyuan @tokers @spacewander @Yiyiyimu
cc @membphis @iamayushdas @KafilatAdeleke