On 6/8/07, Michael Good <musicxml@yahoo.com> wrote:
All MusicXML software to date uses and relies on the .xml suffix, so that cannot change. If we were starting off new, we would have more flexibility. One benefit of the compressed format is that we can add our own special .mxl suffix, which over time will help the usability of these files.
Ah, I see. In that case, I agree that ".xml" should be listed. I'd still recommend specifying a new file extension though, enabling new software, or new versions of existing software, to support it when they can. I'm quite certain that your users will ask for it eventually, once they discover that multiple applications on their desktop are competing for who gets the message when a ".xml" file is double-clicked. Also, as another data point along these lines, when XML files are delivered as "application/xml", many recipients (including all browsers except IE) use the namespace of the root element to do follow-on dispatching[1]. As MusicXML doesn't use namespaces, it won't work well with those recipients when delivered as application/xml. [1] http://www.markbaker.ca/2004/01/XmlDispatchTest// Mark.