You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Tidy currently applies the "POM Code Convention". However since pom.xml files are also XML, the "XML Code Style" should also be applied. In particular, tabs should not be used, and indentation is mostly 2-spaces, with 4-space "hanging" indents for long opening tags (many attributes). Line breaks are also required in many places -- all complex XML types -- and forbidden in a few -- simple XML types.
While it is possible that some projects would prefer to follow the "POM Code Convention" without the "XML Code Style"; they are likely to be rare. In any case, it would be a nice option for tidy-maven-plugin to also apply the XML Code Style, either by default or at least when explicitly requested, either via a new goal or configuration of the existing check/pom goals.
Important XML formating should be separate goal like tidy:xml
P.S. just discovered that https://github.com/ec4j/editorconfig-maven-plugin can do xml formating,
so it can be actually used for pom.xml, and so this ticket can be resolved just to use external tools, possibly reference them.
http://maven.apache.org/developers/conventions/code.html#XML_Code_Style
Tidy currently applies the "POM Code Convention". However since pom.xml files are also XML, the "XML Code Style" should also be applied. In particular, tabs should not be used, and indentation is mostly 2-spaces, with 4-space "hanging" indents for long opening tags (many attributes). Line breaks are also required in many places -- all complex XML types -- and forbidden in a few -- simple XML types.
While it is possible that some projects would prefer to follow the "POM Code Convention" without the "XML Code Style"; they are likely to be rare. In any case, it would be a nice option for tidy-maven-plugin to also apply the XML Code Style, either by default or at least when explicitly requested, either via a new goal or configuration of the existing check/pom goals.
May be a duplicate of #18
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: