- From: Chris Lahey <clahey@clahey.net>
- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:55:59 -0500
- To: George Cristian Bina <george@oxygenxml.com>
- Cc: stephengreenubl@gmail.com, Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>, public-microxml <public-microxml@w3.org>
How about .uxml? I know this requires understanding ยต as the abbreviation for micro. On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:46 AM, George Cristian Bina <george@oxygenxml.com> wrote: > 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 18:57:57 UTC