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

Re: MicroXML file extension

From: George Cristian Bina <george@oxygenxml.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:46:27 +0200
Message-ID: <50AA3833.8050109@oxygenxml.com>
To: stephengreenubl@gmail.com
CC: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>, public-microxml@w3.org
Using .xml for MicroXML will make difficult the distinction between XML 
and MicroXML documents. Some tools may support both XML and MicroXML and 
there should be a way to tell which is what.

Best Regards,
George
--
George Cristian Bina
<oXygen/> XML Editor, Schema Editor and XSLT Editor/Debugger
http://www.oxygenxml.com

On 11/19/12 3:28 PM, Stephen D Green wrote:
> 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
> <mailto:andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 19 November 2012 12:39, George Cristian Bina
>     <george@oxygenxml.com <mailto: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 13:46:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 19 November 2012 13:46:49 GMT