All I am saying is that from an end user perspective it would be nice if we were consistent. If there are problems with the current platform tag, those should be filed as issues in JIRA and fixed. Or we can decide it was a mistake and go with platform attribute on preferences as well since it was really an undocumented feature up until this point.
I'm with Andrew in favouring the element since it is consistent with plugin.xml. As it stands now getIcons doesn't return icon elements specified within platform. So the platform config will end up with an icon element that the parser didn't know about. On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Axel Nennker <ignisvul...@gmail.com> wrote: > Which supports my "suspicion" that platform was introduced for preference > elements but implemented in a way that developers can stick any child > element into it. Which would not have any consequences if a developer would > do it because ConfigParser.js does not honor the platform element. > Platform in config.xml is only parsed while config.xml is merged into > platform-config.xml > > This: <platform name="ios"><name>ios hello world</name></platform> does not > work and the developer gets not feedback that this element is not used > (even on ios). > > > 2014-04-03 15:42 GMT+02:00 Bryan Higgins <br...@bryanhiggins.net>: > > > I added this to edge when it came up on the list a few weeks ago. > > > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cordova-docs.git;a=blobdiff;f=docs/en/edge/config_ref/index.md;h=9c32672403f1ceffce4278aa7e1fa6add7065946;hp=2df993147957cfe6f626f8a08e4a455557889e4d;hb=7598207d0e4395905c009c056947a5a7c9930b1a;hpb=b28cb8be613f637f28dbfd3c0db2bd193e7abb51 > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Feel pretty strongly that we shouldn't introduce gap: prefix. cdv: is > bad > > > enough :(. I'm sure PG Build will accept whatever syntax we come up > with. > > > > > > It's true that <platform> isn't documented (that I know of), but it's > > > consistent with plugin.xml and I think being able to put any elements > in > > > there makes it quite flexible. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Bryan Higgins <br...@bryanhiggins.net > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > My point is only that we should be consistent. If the platform > element > > is > > > > used for preference, then why introduce an attribute which does the > > same > > > > thing for icon? > > > > > > > > Also, I've seen platform=, cdv:platform= and gap:platform= within the > > > pull > > > > requests. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Axel Nennker <ignisvul...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Jonathan, > > > > > considering how difficult is is to get this icon thing is I would > > like > > > to > > > > > postpone splash screen discussion after this is merged or rejected. > > > > > On the other hand there were discussions on this list about splash > > > screen > > > > > support/changes not so long ago. I did not join those because even > > this > > > > > very small icon thing - that does not even introduce new > > > > > elements/formats/whatnot that would require us to support it until > > hell > > > > > freezes - takes ages to get accepted. > > > > > > > > > > One thing regarding icon vs splash: I think that icon/launcher_icon > > is > > > > more > > > > > an OS thing while splash is more a app thing. > > > > > > > > > > cheers > > > > > Axel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2014-04-03 14:46 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Bond-Caron < > > > jbo...@gdesolutions.com > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu Apr 3 05:06 AM, Axel Nennker wrote: > > > > > > > It is a shame that CB-2606 is unresolved this long. We should > > have > > > > > > something > > > > > > > rolled out soon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1, thoughts on splashscreens or other images? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
