XForm file extension

> Sure, but there is still a difference between a, say, XHTML file with
> xforms extensions as opposed to without (for instance, one can be most
> likely well rendered in a web browser whereas the latter will most
> likely not look very nice)... The .xform extension could represent a
> container language file with XForms control, I guess? In practice, you
> may appreciate to launch different editors for XHTML, XSL and XForms
> files, which is what a different extension would allow you to do.
>  
> JAG
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Richard Braman [mailto:[hidden email]]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 21, 2006 8:53 AM
> *To:* [hidden email]
> *Subject:* RE: [ops-users] XForm file extension
>
> By the standard Xforms must be used in a container language.  XHTML is
> most commonly used, but so is XSL, and XFDL.  That kind of negates the
> need for an .xform extension, but I am sure you could use it if you want
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     *From:* Jacques-Alexandre Gerber [mailto:[hidden email]]
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:01 PM
>     *To:* [hidden email]
>     *Subject:* [ops-users] XForm file extension
>
>     Hi,
>      
>     We would be interested in using a different file extension than .xml
>     for XForms documents (OPS XForms examples all have a .xml
>     extension). Although the specification, to my knowledge, does not
>     enforce any particular file extension, I was wondering if you had a
>     recommendation for what could be a best practice (the same way most
>     people and applications understand .wsdl files to be WSDL documents).
>      
>     Let me suggest ".xform" .
>      
>     We could use this in our company as an internal best practice but I
>     would be happier if this could be a shared practice more widely used
>     by XForms users beyond our company. Using a specific file extensions
>     would make it much easier to open XForms files with specific editing
>     properties in many editors.
>      
>     Any idea/suggestion would be much appreciated.
>      
>     Thanks,
>      
>     JAG
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --
> You receive this message as a subscriber of the [hidden email] mailing list.
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[hidden email]
> For general help: mailto:[hidden email]?subject=help
> ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws

> When you start having mixed content, you have a problem when it comes
> to select one specific extension. What do you do if your document
> contains XHTML, XForms, SVG, and MathML? It may simply make more sense
> to use the host language extension.
>
> Note that in OPS we use .xhtml for static XHTML+XForms files, and .xsl
> for XSLT templates whether they contain XHTML and/or XForms or not.
> But we do *not* typically use .xml. If you see an XHTML+XForms file
> with a .xml extension, it's probably a candidate for renaming.
>
> Also, it is important to note that OPS does not care about file
> extensions, but only about file content.
>
> But since there is no standard practice anyway, if .xforms works for
> you, I would just say to go ahead and use that :-)
>
> -Erik
>
>
> Jacques-Alexandre Gerber wrote:
>> Sure, but there is still a difference between a, say, XHTML file with
>> xforms extensions as opposed to without (for instance, one can be
>> most likely well rendered in a web browser whereas the latter will
>> most likely not look very nice)... The .xform extension could
>> represent a container language file with XForms control, I guess? In
>> practice, you may appreciate to launch different editors for XHTML,
>> XSL and XForms files, which is what a different extension would allow
>> you to do.

> for XSLT templates whether they contain XHTML and/or XForms or not.
> But we do *not* typically use .xml. If you see an XHTML+XForms file
> with a .xml extension, it's probably a candidate for renaming.
>
> Also, it is important to note that OPS does not care about file
> extensions, but only about file content.
>
> But since there is no standard practice anyway, if .xforms works for
> you, I would just say to go ahead and use that :-)
>
> -Erik
>
>
> Jacques-Alexandre Gerber wrote:
>> Sure, but there is still a difference between a, say, XHTML file with