[RFC][Proposal] Add an optional field for type definitions about frontend-discovery HOT 2 OPEN

Hi @ruanyl
thanks for taking the time and opening a RFC :)

Considering the schema would be available not only for typescript but also for vanilla javascript, do you think that having the types field in the extras field that currently is available inside the first version of the schema would be enough?

...
"extras": {
    "types": "https://static.website.com/my-account-types.2.0.0.tgz",
}
...

what do you think?

from frontend-discovery.

@lucamezzalira Thanks for the feedback! Right, your suggestion is the same as what I initial thought. But do you think if it makes sense to make it more "standardized"?

Because for extras, user can put arbitrary contents, and they will decide how to use it. For example, for use cases such as code editor plugins and build tool plugins, a universally applicable schema configuration for types maybe easier for the community to embrace the schema.

from frontend-discovery.