I'm in favor of symmetry with the plugins (though an argument for feature can go the other way). On Apr 22, 2014 5:52 PM, "Andrew Grieve" <agri...@chromium.org> wrote:
> Anis - Gorkem wants <feature> since it works with his IDE. *Why* do > you prefer <feature>? > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Anis KADRI <anis.ka...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I prefer <feature>. > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Mark Koudritsky <kam...@google.com> > wrote: > > > >> I prefer the <dependency> syntax. It's shorter, more intuitive and > >> consistent with plugin.xml. I don't see much value in _partial_ > compliance > >> with the w3c spec. > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Michal Mocny <mmo...@google.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > Gorkem is adding awesome feature to restore plugins/platforms your app > >> > depends on. There is some debate on the correct syntax to use in the > >> > config.xml file: do we use (a) plugin.xml style <dependency> tags, or > (b) > >> > w3c widget spec <feature> tags? > >> > > >> > Gorkem votes (b), arguing that using widget spec helps his tools with > >> > editing config.xml (existing gui editor, I assume?), and has > implemented > >> a > >> > PR for it (https://github.com/apache/cordova-cli/pull/165). > >> > > >> > I vote (a), arguing that we already don't match widget spec, and > already > >> > have established syntax for for specifying plugin urls & versions in > >> > plugin.xml (with docs and examples), and its better for our CLI > >> > implementation to use existing plugin deps handlers. > >> > > >> > What do you think? > >> > > >> > Background: read full thread titled "[GitHub] cordova-cli pull > request: > >> > CB-6469" > >> > > >> >
