If we did that, wouldn't they both effectively just end up the same, anyway?
(See what I did there?) Seriously though, if the schema is changing isn't that all the more reason to support validation so devs can get early confirmation? -Michal On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: > config.tylerdurden > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Shazron <[email protected]> wrote: > > Not quite deprecation I suppose, but fight club ;) (we know how this one > > ends) > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Well, nothing saying we can't support two formats and let the likely > >> one die appropriately. > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Shazron <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > I suppose - but for 3.0 we are a lock for xml, and we are probably > going > >> to > >> > support it for a while? or 4.0? ;) > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> I'd say we should hold off on this particular work. The schema is > >> >> changing pretty rapidly and this would just fall out of sync. That > and > >> >> there is pretty strong argument brewing to move to JSON. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Carlos Santana <[email protected] > > > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > +1 > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Marcel Kinard <[email protected]> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Would it make sense to have an xsd (XML schema) file for > plugin.xml > >> and > >> >> >> config.xml, so that folks could programatically validate their xml > >> files > >> >> >> against the schema with a tool like xmllint? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I'd be happy to do that. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > Carlos Santana > >> >> > <[email protected]> > >> >> > >> >
