Marcos Caceres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2006-11-13 12:43 +1000: > I'm also with Ed on this one. I think the more generic 'manifest.xml' > name makes more sense in this context, as a lot of the actual data in > the manifest is not used to directly "configure" the application in any > significant way... but then again, it all depends on the definition of > "configuration".
And it would alse depend on the definition of "manifest"... In my experience with software at least, a manifest used to be just a simple list of files (sometimes an annotated list) for the application, project, package, etc. that it shipped with -- not a file containing other metadata. Most manifest files I see are still of that type. I know manifest files for Java apps have other metadata, but they seem to me to be the exception, not the rule. So I wonder if, given that the file actually contains metadata, it might not be better to name it "metadata.xml" or "meta.xml". But I wouldn't have any heartburn if it ended up being named manifest.xml -- just as I don't have any about people saying "that begs the question" to mean "that raises the question" instead of using it to mean what "begs the question" originally meant (that is, a certain type of logical fallacy related to circular reasoning). --Mike
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
