• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: file extensions best practice
• From: am <am@f...>
• Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 02:26:08 +0200
• In-reply-to: <000001c3714d$aeeddaf0$2001a8c0@bryans>
• References: <1197291424.20030902115035@s...> <000001c3714d$aeeddaf0$2001a8c0@bryans>
• User-agent: Mutt/1.4i

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Nentwich [mailto:christian@s...] 
> 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?

What about appending the file type to the filename, and keep the
xml extension:

blabla1_book.xml
blabla2_book.xml

or   book_blabla1.xml
     book_blabla2.xml 
?


Adrian Maier

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: file extensions best practice
    • From: "Alessandro Triglia" <sandro@m...>

• References:
  • file extensions best practice
    • From: Christian Nentwich <christian@s...>
  • RE: file extensions best practice
    • From: "bryan" <bry@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Avoiding roundoff errors in calculations?
• Next by Date: RE: file extensions best practice
• Previous by thread: RE: file extensions best practice
• Next by thread: RE: file extensions best practice
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread