Replaced the explicit readme.text and readme.content-type fields with readme="README.md" in pyproject.toml.

[Schefflera-Arboricola]

Why made this change?

• Ensures consistency—changes to README.md automatically reflect on PyPI without needing to update pyproject.toml.
• Allows more project details to be displayed on PyPI.
• Reduces maintenance overhead by avoiding redundant updates.
• Makes the pyproject.toml less populated

Let me know if there's any concern about showing too much on PyPI. Happy to adjust if needed.

Thank you :)

• I am familiar with the contributing guidelines
• Adds description and name entries in the appropriate "what's new" file in docs/sphinx/source/whatsnew for all changes. Includes link to the GitHub Issue with :issue:`num` or this Pull Request with :pull:`num`. Includes contributor name and/or GitHub username (link with :ghuser:`user`).
• Pull request is nearly complete and ready for detailed review.
• Maintainer: Appropriate GitHub Labels (including remote-data) and Milestone are assigned to the Pull Request and linked Issue.

[cwhanse]

astropy and numpy do this, so I'll thumbs up to imitate them.

@kandersolar we ought to also add the maintainers block I think?

[adriesse]

I did some looking around when setting this up for my own new repo and concluded that I liked having more timeless, generic and succinct info on PyPI, vs. more recent, specific and detailed info on github. I didn't take notes, but there were others like that.

[kandersolar]

I am of the same mind as Anton: simple=better on PyPI. And we don't change this text very often, so there's not a major avoided burden by keeping them synced automatically. But I don't feel strongly about it.

@kandersolar we ought to also add the maintainers block I think?

I don't think we need to in any technical sense. We have authors, and the packaging community hasn't converged on a clear distinction between authors vs maintainers: https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/pyproject-toml/#authors-maintainers

I wouldn't object to a PR that creates a maintainers block that duplicates the current authors block, but I don't see a clear benefit and I don't think it's worth the small cost of the PR.