Because every platform we target (and every config file we have to output) uses XML, and it's easier to interoperate.
On 11 October 2012 10:13, Jesse <purplecabb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Can use both ... .json for npm-like package discovery and .xml for > install-time configuration. > > On the wp7 pluginstall, I liked the xml format because I essentially > just defined an xml fragment that gets appended to the output project > file ( also an xml file ) > > > > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Anis KADRI <anis.ka...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > -- > @purplecabbage > risingj.com >
