The spec has moved to a repo: https://github.com/defunctzombie/package-browser-field-spec to facilitate collaboration.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
wilmoore
commented
Feb 23, 2013
|
Added to "Complementary Resources" section of "Front-End Package Manager Comparison": |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
kirbysayshi
commented
Nov 13, 2013
|
How would a module author provide the following:
Given a |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
thomasfr
commented
Nov 7, 2014
|
It is not completely related to this, but i want to extend the concept of client side (only) libraries npm. Imo the problem of client side dependencies with js, css, etc. is still not solved yet. There are tools for some parts of it but no common specification or configuration etc. What about other client side assets like css, less or images? At the moment thats completely missing in my opinion. There is already the There are tons of great client side libraries on npm but every single one is different to use / consume in the frontend when it comes to css, less, sass, images, fonts, etc. How to include them? What files should be included? In which order? It would be great if package maintainers could clearly describe what additional assets, besides javascript are shipped with the npm package and how to consume them. Lets take bootstrap as an example (original https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/blob/master/package.json)
This could be even further extended to configure which assets are already "compiled", minified or packaged for usage or which assets are optional (bootstrap-theme.min.css). Here are some very popular packages with js, css and/or other assets on npm without any further configuration:
Package Managers like bower, component, npm or other tools like browserify, etc. could use this information only or in addition to their separate configuration files. What do you think? |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
majgis
commented
Dec 31, 2014
|
It would be great if we could expand this spec with subarg syntax: |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
adjavaherian
commented
May 4, 2015
|
So this currently doesn't exist in Webpack? |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
djfm
commented
Jun 15, 2015
|
Nice spec. When you write: "browser": {
"module-a": false,
"./server/only.js": "./shims/server-only.js"
}Are the relative paths in In other words, lets say
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
adjavaherian
commented
Jul 23, 2015
|
A regex option would be cool, so you don't have to explicitly define each module of type to be false. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
zeke
commented
Sep 8, 2015
|
Hey @defunctzombie would it make sense to PR this into https://github.com/npm/npm/edit/master/doc/files/package.json.md ? |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
balupton
commented
Sep 19, 2015
|
Is this added to anything besides browserify? Would be cool to see support in webpack and jspm. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
watsoncj
commented
Sep 25, 2015
|
Verified this works in webpack. The property is overloaded so you sometimes have to get creative if you have a client-only entry point and want to specify a module location.
The |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
chauthai
commented
Oct 6, 2015
|
@balupton It's already supported in JSPM: jspm/jspm-cli#1062 |
This comment has been minimized.
jhnns commentedFeb 13, 2013
Nice! I'd love to see this spec implemented in all bundlers😄