Community
Participate
Working Groups
Created attachment 100404 [details] Change extension to compare_xml Bug 221115 has risen an issue showing that we should reconsider if we want to use exemplary XML compare facility to work with real XML files. Given that the example is there to illustrate how to register a compare merge viewer and other viewers, not to provide an XML compare itself. As suggested in bug 221115, comment 12 we've got two options here: 1) "change the file extension used by the example to a custom extension to avoid interfering with real file types" 2) create a custom content type that is a child of XML and only associate the compare viewer with that I would go with the first one (custom extension). I wanted to change it to .cxml or .xmlc, where "c" stands for compare, but then I discover that they are already in use. "cxml" is used for commercial or constrained xmls and "xmlc" is used when working with so called xml compiler. So, using these extensions can lead to potential conflicts in the future, so I think the safest one would be "compare_xml" and this is my proposition.
It would be great if we could put it in 3.4.
How about these? .cmpxmlex .cxe (compare xml example) .cmpex .compare .cmp
Szymon, Michael, what are your types? Is "xml_compare" fine? To make it for 3.4 RC2 I will need positive reviews from you guys.
I don't really like the use of an underscore in a file extensions. How about *.cml or *.cxml? (just to add to the list of possibilities ;-)
Please take my last suggestion as my opinion and not a condition for approval. I am happy with whatever extension you choose. Just make sure that the documentation for the example is updated so users will know what extension they need to use.
I vote for .cxml
Created attachment 101230 [details] Patch v2 Patch that changes the extension to cxml (it's final) and updates docs.
The latest patch applied to CVS HEAD.
Verified in Example Plug-ins for 3.4 RC3.
