I think we should stick to it for now. I am totally in favor of using JSON in the future but right now I would like to see more plugins use this XML format.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > ya the past is irrelevant. since we're moving to npm for the pkg mgmt we > should probably move to an extension of package.json > > instead of clobbering andrew's work (and creating work for him) we should > have a light module in-between that is responsible for marshaling between > the formats. > > this stuff is decidedly not hard but certainly not interesting or fun. > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > Probably no reason other than "because Andrew wrote it and that's what he > > chose" > > > > On 10/11/12 3:20 AM, "Mike Reinstein" <reinstein.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >If this is an old discussion/argument I'm sorry for re-hashing this. I'm > > >wondering why express the plugin manifest in xml, when its managed in > > >node/javascript which handles json natively. There doesn't seem to be > any > > >significant nesting or complex XML within the doc thus far. Intentional > > >design decision? Any info on this would be enlightening and helpful. > > > > > >thanks, > > > > > >-Mike > > > > >
