W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-microxml@w3.org > November 2012

Re: MicroXML file extension

From: Stephen D Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:28:30 +0000
Message-ID: <CAA0AChXRV+xcSvxR_OxODDRbOK1vn0YgA+MV8LJJ-fmsFrpNqQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>
Cc: George Cristian Bina <george@oxygenxml.com>, public-microxml@w3.org
What are pros and cons of an extension other than '.xml'?
----
Stephen D Green



On 19 November 2012 12:48, Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19 November 2012 12:39, George Cristian Bina <george@oxygenxml.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > (I am not sure if this was already discussed, in case it was discussed
> > before please point me to that discussion.)
> >
> > What will be the common extension for a MicroXML file?
> >
> > .m
> > .mx
> > .mxml
> > .microxml
> > anything else?
> >
> > .mx will be my preference.
>
> Sounds good.
>
> .mxml should be avoided as Murex xml already exists and is commonly
> referred to as 'mxml'.
>
>
> --
> Andrew Welch
> http://andrewjwelch.com
>
>
Received on Monday, 19 November 2012 13:29:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 19 November 2012 13:29:18 GMT