[gherkin]

Might it make more sense to rather compile the editorconfig file into the respective editor's config file? That way you need not depend on a plugin being written for the editor. This would mean that you could support more editors and enhance editor configurations without having to wait for the plugin to update to support your own new features. This would be at the cost of the ease of simply editing a single file, though it could be set up that, when compiled, the system will back the old config file up and insert the new one in its place.

[th]

EditorConfig support built-in to your text editor is the pipe dream. JetBrains 9 will have EditorConfig support, but no other editors yet support it natively so all of the plugins are necessary currently.

Unfortunately many editors do not support project-level configuration files by default. A conversion tool could be a good way to make global configurations even more accessible for editors that do support project configuration files and don't have native EditorConfig support yet.

Until native support becomes more common, EditorConfig acts as an unopinionated universal editor-level linter of sorts.

[michaelmior]

Then this would mean that you would have to compile this for every editor anyone editing the code base chose to use. It also means someone editing the code would have to manually copy the config file into the correct location. This kills the fact that EditorConfig plugins can automatically change settings per project, which is where a lot of the usefulness comes from IMO.