On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Braden Shepherdson <bra...@chromium.org>wrote:
> First, a brief point: We do *not* follow the widget spec, not anymore. We > were close, a long time ago, but we've added multiple Cordova-specific or > Phonegap-specific things and some slight tweaks to the meaning of some tags > and attributes. Since the widget spec is officially deprecated, I argue > that we can now stop caring about following the spec, and just decide what > configuration makes sense for Cordova. > While we don't currently follow it *semantically*, I think that we do follow it syntactically. This means XSD validation currently passes. > > Looking over Jonathan's "rough work" page, I generally like what I'm > seeing, except for the persistent question of what we're gaining with all > these changes. Like the JSON config files idea, I'd be happy if we were > already in that world. But the transition is sufficiently painful that > switching doesn't feel worth it; we don't gain enough to justify the pain. > > However! That only applies to the configuration file reshuffling. If we > really can refactor Plugman's flows to have reversible transactions, that > would definitely make me happy. But I don't think we should conflate the > config changes and that refactoring - they're independent. We would need to > expand the metadata tracked by plugman, of course, but that's not the same > as moving all the configuration. > > Braden > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Jonathan Bond-Caron < > jbo...@gdesolutions.com> wrote: > > > On Thu Feb 13 09:37 AM, Andrew Grieve wrote: > > > Jonathan - I'm a fan of your "rough work" :) > > > > > > > Thanks, lots of credit to Braden & Mark around the plugman 'project' idea > > > > Note about xml vs. json config, Cordova could support both. Upstream > > distributions could choose to focus on config as XML, json or both. > > IBM most likely would prefer XML for the XSD & tooling, Adobe could do > XML > > for enterprise... json for web devs, ...? > > > > Don't think there's a silver bullet there. > > > > > Reason I'd want to use <cdv:icon> instead of <icon> for now, is to > > minimize the > > > number of "cdv:"s that appear. If you namespace the element, you don't > > need to > > > namespace the attributes. It also makes <cdv:icon> and > <cdv:splashscreen> > > > more similar. > > > > Makes sense, the work on cdv:icon could be pushed into the 4.0 config > > (with no namespace). > > > > >
