Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > Good point. > > +1 for block.xinfo > Hmm. Beyond .xml, .xsl, . xhtml and .fo there ought to be .xconf, .xmap, .xtarget (yuck!) and now .xinfo extensions associated with the XML edit mode. It's getting out of hand. What's wrong with sitemap.xml and blockinfo.xml? Rationale - there is only one web application description file in a context, and Sun choose web.xml. - there is usually only one build description file in a context, and Ant uses build.xml. Even though multiple build description files could be put into the same directory, the usual scope is a "project", and "projects" tend to have their own directory subtree. - there is only one sitemap in one context. Even though multiple sitemaps could be put into the same directory, subsitemaps tend to have their own directory subtree. The situation is quite similar to the Ant build description files. - there should only be one block info in one context (the block). Unless I got something very wrong, the situation is quite to the web.xml situation. The .xconf is ok: - there can be more than one configuration file in one context (cocoon, logkit, fop) - multiple .xcconf files may be in the same directory - cocoon.xconf is more informative than cocoon.xml, and easier to handle that cocoon-config.xml Caveat: the extension doesn't say anything about the XML schema used, cocoon.xconf likely needs an other DTD than logkit.xconf.
HTH J.Pietschmann --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
