Use package.exports for better compatibility #110
Merged
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hey!
I'd like to suggest this change in
package.json
which should make the package more interoperable.The
exports
field is the standard way to specify the "main" module and is universally supported by most runtimes and bundlers. The currently usedmodule
field does not work in Node.js and even a simpleimport {} from 'docx-preview'
will fail.I also removed
"type": "module"
, as it is not correct. The property is meant to specify whether.js
files in the package are to be interpreted as ES modules or CommonJS. And right nowdist/*.js
are all CommonJS modules. If you wanted to keep"type": "module"
, you'd need to rename those files to.cjs
.Finally, I also added
moduleResolution
totsconfig.json
so that thejszip
import would resolve properly.With these changes, it will be possible to load
docx-preview
from both ES and CommonJS modules.