I personally prefer the .html extension, for the editor integration reasons that have been stated and restated previously. Of course, this could be configurable, or the extension could be one of a number of choices. We just need to make sure we balance complexity and usability.
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. > > -- Daniel Gredler http://daniel.gredler.net/
