- 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