• To: xml dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: file extensions best practice
• From: Christian Nentwich <christian@s...>
• Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 11:50:35 +0100
• Organization: Systemwire
• Reply-to: Christian Nentwich <christian@s...>

All,

I'm hoping to peruse some of your experience on this one. I'm
currently evaluating the pros and cons of having product-specific file
extensions instead of .xml. The pros seem obvious:

- Distinguish the different files (our product has 3 or 4 file types)
at a glance
- The standard GUI file dialogs can filter without doing anything
intelligent like parsing the headers of the file

The cons (?):

- The files are not recognisable as XML files anymore and the standard
XML editors won't list them
- Web servers won't generate the correct headers unless reconfigured
- The space for 3 digit file prefixes is small, and ours would look
like .x?? which make sthe space even smaller

Is there anything I'm missing? What are people's opinions on this?

Christian

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: file extensions best practice
    • From: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>
  • Re: file extensions best practice
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • Re: file extensions best practice
    • From: "Bryce K. Nielsen" <bryce@s...>
  • RE: file extensions best practice
    • From: "bryan" <bry@i...>
  • Re: file extensions best practice
    • From: "Bob Foster" <bob@o...>

• Prev by Date: Linux.Conf.Au 2004 Opens Registration :-)
• Next by Date: Re: file extensions best practice
• Previous by thread: Linux.Conf.Au 2004 Opens Registration :-)
• Next by thread: Re: file extensions best practice
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread