This is the mail archive of the
docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
mailing list for the DocBook project.
Re: Re: DocBook filename extension
- From: "Matt G." <matt_g_ at hotmail dot com>
- To: Steffen dot Maier at studserv dot uni-stuttgart dot de
- Cc: docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 02:58:09 +0000
- Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: Re: DocBook filename extension
- Bcc:
>From: Steffen Maier <Steffen.Maier@studserv.uni-stuttgart.de>
>CC: docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: Re: DocBook filename extension
>Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 21:22:12 +0100
>
> > I use '*.xdbk'. I don't understand why people use '*.xml', since
> > it's not just XML - you can be far more specific than that. I
> > regard that as somewhat like naming files containing C code as
> > '*.txt', since they are technically text files (well yeah... but
> > OF COURSE they're text files!). Maybe one reason I'm so keen to
> > distinguish XML DocBook from other types of XML files is that I
> > have pattern rules, in my makefiles, for processing them, as well
> > as files of other XML-based formats.
>
>...
>be noted in the file's suffix. That's why I like the idea of
>multiple suffixes like .docbook.xml if there is need to express the
>certain kind of markup language that is used inside an xml document
>in the document's filename (as Jirka already pointed out it's all
>inside the document's prolog anyways).
Thanks to all who reminded me about DOCTYPE. As I mentioned, I'm often
approaching things from a UNIXy perspective (e.g. writing pattern rules in
makefiles, etc.), which usually turns out to be a *good* thing.
What I still don't like about using the .xml extension is that perhaps 90%
of file formats, in use, become XML-based, in the next decade. Then, so
many files would have .xml extensions (assuming that convention is followed)
that the extension becomes virtually meaningless. Furthermore, is many
cases, a file's filename is the only piece of information you have, about
it.
>Specifying increasing detail from right to left through multiple
>suffixes allows you to process any xml document with generic xml
>processors, no matter what dtd (or not) it conforms to (even if this
>is not always meaningful).
This is a good point, and it's why I chose to use .xdbk.ent, for my docbook
entities. Sometimes, when they're just unstructured text, I use .ent.
>I think that's an important point when thinking about mime-types.
>Trying to follow RFC3023, I use the following mime-type
>declarations and file-suffixes (e.g. for apache):
>
>text/xml xml xsl xhtml
>text/xml-external-parsed-entity ent
>application/xml-dtd dtd mod
># application/xslt+xml xsl
Hmmm... I mostly follow this (except for .xml) but I believe strongly in
using .xslt, for XSLT. If I write XSLT to transform something into XSL-FO,
then I'd consider using the extension .xsl. But the output would likely be
.xsl-fo (though I don't regard .fo as unreasonable).
> > What I'd like to know is what people use for external parsed
> > entity filename conventions. I use '*.xdbk.ent', since they are
> > external parsed entities that tend to be fairly specific to XML
> > DocBook.
>
>Yep.
> > For external parameter entities, I generally use '*_xdbk.dtd',
> > since a DTD fragment is theoretically usable as a stand-alone
> > DTD (unlike external parsed entities, which don't have to meet
> > criteria as stringent as well-formed XML files), and are more
> > reusable from DTDs for another vocabulary, but tend to specific
> > to XML DocBook, in some way. I regard external parameter
> > entities in much the same way as I view C header files - the
> > extension declares the format and usage model, but not the
> > usage semantics.
>
>Personally I use .mod for (external) parameter entities, because
>I've got .mod files that might only contain entity declarations so
>they don't meet the criteria of a self contained dtd IMO.
Ah, but it's still valid to name them in your DOCTYPE declaration. Note
that I decided NOT TO ADDRESS usage semantics in the filename extension of
my external parameter entities. :)
>My EUR 0.02,
Eh, they should just get it over with and standardize on the electron-volt,
as the basis for a global currency!! :)
>Steffen.
BTW, thanks for your thoughtful response!
Matt
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.