[DOCS] Standardize docs for url setting

[jrodewig]

• Updates url Active Directory realm setting to indicate you can provide multiple URLs
• Standardizes wording for url setting in LDAP and Active Directory realms

Resolves #32830

[elasticmachine]

Pinging @elastic/es-security

[tvernum]

This is incorrect, though it's a logical interpretation of the old text (hence the need to update it)

Ignoring, for a moment, what we want the docs to say, the rules are:

• you can specific ldap or ldaps protocols for a single URL.
• you can specific ldap or ldaps protocols when providing multiple URLs, but you must be consistent across all URLs. That is, they must all be ldap or must all be ldaps.
• if providing multiple URLs you can either:
  1. use YAML array syntax url: ["ldaps://server1:636", "ldaps://server2:636" ]; or
  2. use a comma separated string: url: "ldaps://server1:636,ldaps://server2:636"

I struggle to find the sweet spot between documenting every possible option, and overwhelming the reader with too much information, vs just documenting a common set of option and have users get confused about why a certain behaviour is not documented.

Which is to say, I'm not sure whether it would be better to document all of the rules that I've written above, or simplify to it.

[tvernum]

As per above - whatever we decide to do there should be included here.

[jrodewig]

Thanks for the feedback and corrections @tvernum.

I revised the definitions with ef9d7d7. To help balance simplicity v. documenting everything, I tried to create an information hierarchy using paragraphs.

All important and common information should be captured in the first paragraph. More advanced information and options are presented further on.

Please let me know if this doesn't accurately reflect the rules you outlined. Also let me know if you feel this should be simplified more.

[tvernum]

The above is correct.

I do wonder whether the last sentence is too colloquial for non-native speakers, but I'll defer to the the docs team on that.

[jrodewig]

Thanks @tvernum. @debadair @lcawl let me know what you feel about the sentence @tvernum is referencing here:

While both are supported, you can't mix the ldapandldaps protocols.

I think we're within style bounds here, but I'd appreciate any feedback. Thanks as always!