Merge pull request #53 from mssssss123/page/project

fix: improve clarity and conciseness in documentation for UltraRAG 2.0

Author: mssssss123

index.html

@@ -255,8 +255,8 @@ <h2 class="subtitle has-text-centered">
             </div>
 
             <p>
-              其官方实现需要 <strong>近 900 行手写逻辑</strong>，FlashRAG 也需要 <strong>超过 110 行代码</strong>。而 UltraRAG 2.0 仅用
-              <strong>50 行代码</strong> 即可完成同等功能。更值得注意的是，其中约一半还是用于编排 Pipeline 的 Yaml 伪代码，这大幅降低了开发门槛与实现成本。
+              在官方实现中，仅 <strong>Pipeline 部分就需要近 900 行手写逻辑</strong>；即便使用标杆级 RAG 框架（如 FlashRAG），也仍需 <strong>超过 110 行代码</strong>。相比之下，UltraRAG 2.0 只需
+              <strong>约 50 行代码</strong> 即可完成同等功能。更值得强调的是，其中约一半还是用于编排的 Yaml 伪代码，这大幅降低了开发门槛与实现成本。
             </p>
 
             <div class="item">
@@ -277,7 +277,7 @@ <h2 class="subtitle has-text-centered">不同框架实现 IRCoT 的代码规模
 
 
             <p>
-              我们进一步展示了不同框架在相同功能实现上的差异。可以看到，FlashRAG 的实现仍然需要冗长的控制逻辑，涉及显式的循环、条件判断与状态更新。而在 UltraRAG 2.0 中，这些逻辑仅需 <strong>几行
+              我们进一步展示了不同框架在相同功能实现上的差异。可以看到，FlashRAG 的实现仍然需要较长的控制逻辑，涉及显式的循环、条件判断与状态更新。而在 UltraRAG 2.0 中，这些逻辑仅需 <strong>几行
                 Pipeline YAML 配置</strong> 即可表达，分支与循环均以简洁的声明方式完成，避免了繁琐的手动编码。
             </p>
 

index_en.html

@@ -265,12 +265,11 @@ <h2 class="subtitle has-text-centered">
             </div>
 
             <p>
-              Its official implementation requires <strong>nearly 900 lines of handwritten logic</strong>, and even
-              FlashRAG still takes
-              <strong>over 110 lines of code</strong>. In contrast, UltraRAG 2.0 achieves the same functionality with
-              just
-              <strong>50 lines</strong>. Notably, about half of this is merely Pipeline Yaml pseudo-code, dramatically
-              lowering the development barrier and implementation cost.
+              In the official implementation, the Pipeline alone requires <strong>nearly 900 lines of handwritten logic</strong>. 
+              Even with a benchmark RAG framework such as FlashRAG, it still takes <strong>over 110 lines of code</strong>. 
+              In contrast, UltraRAG 2.0 achieves the same functionality with just <strong>around 50 lines of code</strong>—and notably, 
+              nearly half of these are simply Yaml pseudo-code for pipeline orchestration. 
+              This dramatically lowers the development barrier and implementation cost.
             </p>
 
             <div class="item">
@@ -290,7 +289,7 @@ <h2 class="subtitle has-text-centered">How Different Frameworks Implement IRCoT:
 
             <p>
               We showcase how frameworks differ in implementing the same functionality.
-              FlashRAG requires verbose control logic with explicit loops, conditionals, and state updates.
+              FlashRAG requires lengthy control logic with explicit loops, conditionals, and state updates.
               UltraRAG 2.0, on the other hand, simplifies everything into just <strong>a few lines of Pipeline
                 YAML—branches and loops</strong> are expressed declaratively,
               removing the burden of manual coding.