- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:31:29 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- CC: ebruchez@orbeon.com, avernet@orbeon.com
Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2008 13:32:14 UTC
From private correspondence:
> I know this is not relevant to [...], but
> the *.xpl extension is used by Orbeon's pipeline definition files yet
> (in a language called XPL.) Maybe it would be worth avoiding
> confusion and don't spread this usage for XProc files? Maybe using
> just *.xp, or using *.xproc would be better?
Do we want to reconsider .xpl?
(Erik/Alessandro, were you guys paying attention when we picked .xpl?)
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | More imagination would indeed be a mere
http://nwalsh.com/ | trifling; only no imagination is
| *mere*.--C. S. Peirce
Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2008 13:32:14 UTC