I'm on the fence on this; I agree that .xml might be a more appropriate
extension, or something Tapestry specific, such as ".tml". Certainly we're
starting see people want to use Tapestry to create non-HTML, such as SVG and
something related to Facebook.
On the other hand, the easy integration with editors should not be
discounted.
Let see what others think ... it's not a huge change at this point to change
the extension.
On 9/17/07, Daniel Jue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Having the templates with an html extension allows easier integration
> with you preferred html editor, such as Dreamweaver. ("edit with")
> Whereas you may want xml documents opened with Notepad++ (Great, by
> the way), etc.
>
> If anything, they should be .xhtml documents.
>
> Another problem might be that some browsers may not have their mime
> types properly set--about the only mime type you can guarantee to work
> is for html. I think xml and xhtml are delivered as something other
> than text usually.
>
> This is pretty old, but check out:
> http://www.ookingdom.com/design/xhtml
>
>
>
>
> On 9/17/07, Christian Gruber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It occurs to me that having .html as a file extension on the template
> > files is weird, especially since they are by necessity well-formed xml
> > documents, which html documents are not. Since they might be other
> > kinds of documents than xhtml, would it make more sense to have them
> > called .xml documents? It's a small thing, but worth considering.
> >
> > Christian.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Partner and Senior Architect at Feature50
Creator Apache Tapestry and Apache HiveMind
