On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Ted Gould wrote:
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 00:16:00 -0700 From: Ted Gould <ted@...11...> To: inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] Extension Proposal (First Draft)
On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 11:20, Alan Horkan wrote:
Would it be so bad to use the .xml extension? The context of these files might be enough to identify them without a funky file extension.
.xml is probably already associated with a text (or sometimes even a specialised xml) editor and by using .xml there will be no need to educate other applicatins about this new format.
Well, I don't think we've ever really intended for other applications to
I realise that but my point was that it would only require minor changes to keep that option open.
use this format. Another thing that it saves us is actually having to look at files and detect what they are. Now we're pretty much assuming that an 'inkmod' file is a module definition - a .xml file would probably require more validation and checking. I don't know that we really gain anything by having other applications understand this format.
Again it is not so much other applications understanding the format so much as having the immediately be able to recognise them as XML without requiring any magic.
In terms of the file extension I am thinking of wanting to have .xml associated with either your favourite text editor (vim, emacs, nano, kate, nedit, whatever) or your favourite genric XML editor (conglomerate, mlview, vex, kxmleditor, xmlspy). It is not about the other applications understanding the actual format of the xml so much as not putting up any barriers to editing it in your favourite (XML) editor. Changing the extension means needing to add mime types or associations.
I would urge you to keep using .xml for the reasons I have outlined until there are a specific benefits to using a different extension.
-- Alan Horkan