W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > September 2008

.xpl? bah humbug

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
Message-ID: <m28wtjj8em.fsf@nwalsh.com>
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,

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:41:40 UTC