I've got a branch up for bb10 here: https://github.com/blackberry/cordova-cli/commit/a3da36cdc31ea4d090f5c63b2930160af474d3bc
Right now it fails to build if icons exist for any other platform or an icon element exists within <platform name="blackberry10">. On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Bryan Higgins <br...@bryanhiggins.net>wrote: > 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? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
