Hong Xu

I think this is OK as long as their own options don't clash with the standard ones, because the purpose of EditorConfig is to offer consistency for people using different...

I think your current solution is perfectly fine. Why not expect them to work well? All core libraries have been extensively tested against the ordering (see https://github.com/editorconfig/editorconfig-core-test ), and the...

@mcepl I personally think this is actually a viable new feature (may need a bit adaptation). Can you propose it in https://github.com/editorconfig/editorconfig/issues ? When we decide to support a new...

I like the idea to add a property for syntax highlighting. Besides the different names of identifier, there is another issue, which is most editors I see not only set...

@jedmao I think we should get something done on this problem. EditorConfig hasn't made a significant progress for a really long time. `file_type` is really an important feature, and it...

@jedmao We only need to push a new specification to the document. How about draft a description of `file_type` and see people's reaction? To see people's reaction, we come back...

@10sr :+1: Unfortunately I think this is probably the best way to proceed. Language name mapping is not straight-forward, and ambiguity is everywhere. If all editor plugins can proceed in...

Can you explain a bit more? I don't understand your point on the `js` package (p.s. I'm not familiar with js)

It makes sense for me. This seems like a editorconfig-core-js specific issue.... Can we move the discussion there?

I agree with @sindresorhus , it is exactly the reason we don't support a "global" configuration file. @sindresorhus If we have an "extends" or "include" instruction, is the `package.json` issue...