On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Tony Mechelynck wrote: > > On 11/02/09 16:23, Matt Wozniski wrote: > [...] >> Well, of course I didn't mean that we should add the features to the >> zip format. Rather, I meant we should do something more like XPI - >> create a zip file, rename it to .vba, and let vim handle it specially. >> The change would be transparent to users, and give more useful >> features to developers, without having to reinvent the wheel. > [...] > > For backward compatibility, *.vba shouldn't be a zipfile under another > name (which .xpi and .jar are, but these extensions were never used for > something else before). *.vba.gz (keeping the .vba as-is and compressing > them for transport, the way .tar.gz relates to plain .tar) would be easy > to implement; if you want something more complicated than this, I > believe a new extension would be necessary.
Yes, I realized that after sending that email off - I was thinking about it providing backwards compatibility in the sense that the install process for a zip-based vimball and a vimscript-based vimball could be made largely the same, but at the time of writing it didn't even occur to me that the old vimball install scripts would mangle it. Oops. ~Matt --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
