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

Re: .xpl? bah humbug

From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:24:30 +0200
Message-ID: <546c6c1c0809230724w457eb19eq348c769060cee0a7@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org, ebruchez@orbeon.com, avernet@orbeon.com
If I'm not wrong

In http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/12/20-minutes

the point 86

 86. A really important question

  Norm: This what extension to use...

  Henry: Whatever convention we establish, people will follow.
  ... We ought to give a little thought to the extension
  ... We could just expose them as .xml
  ... Since we're toying with a media type, web server administrators will
  be unhappy if we don't pick a suffix.

  <ht> allinurl: xpl filetype:xpl

  Henry: There are about 8000 pages that end in .xpl
  ... Orbeon uses .xpl

  Alessandro: works for me!

  Henry: So is this the way we're going

  Norm: I'm not really fond of the idea of making a statement directly about
  it in the spec, but I'm happy to use .xpl in examples and the test suite,

  Henry: We have an issue about the media type stuff and fragment
  identifiers. We'll get back to this, indirectly, when we cover that issue.

  Norm: I'm happy that we have an informal consensus to use .xpl, but I
  don't feel like we need to add it to the spec just yet.

  Alessandro: The XSLT spec says that most of the stylesheets use the
  extension .xsl

  Norm: Right, in the media type spec, I'm happy to do that too.

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:

> 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

Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 
Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2008 14:25:09 UTC

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