[xquery-talk] XQuery file naming conventions (xq, xqy, xql, xqm, xquery, etc.)

Joe Wicentowski joewiz at gmail.com
Tue Jan 22 15:21:24 PST 2013

Hi all,

I just noticed a new one: .xu.  This extension appears in oXygen's
File > Save dialog in Windows when you are saving an XQuery file:

  Save as type: XQUERY, XQ, XQL, XQM, XQY, XU

Hadn't seen that one before.  What could it mean?  XUpdate?  But
XUpdate isn't XQuery...

Maybe we should adopt it so that we can pronounce our files'
extensions as "dot zoo"!


On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Joe Wicentowski <joewiz at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks to all for your responses!  There's merit in all of the
> approaches that were shared.
> I'm sympathetic to the idea that we shouldn't have to use file
> extensions to distinguish between library and main modules.  Maybe
> ".xq" (or ".xquery") across the board makes sense.
> One thing does bug me about the "module" terminology in the spec.  If
> the spec distinguishes between "library" and "main" modules, why do
> *only* library modules begin with the "module namespace" construction?
>  Shouldn't *all* modules begin with "module namespace ..."?  Or if
> that's overkill, shouldn't it be "library module namespace ..."
> instead (as opposed to "main module namespace ...")?
> In retrospect, I think this "module namespace..." construction is
> responsible for many of us thinking that a module *is* a library
> module.  I never thought of library vs. main modules.  I always
> thought of "modules" vs. "scripts."  If I'd been there on the
> committee, I think I would've advocated doing away with "module"
> altogether, and instead promoting "library" and "script".
> But we've got library and main module, and I guess that's okay.  And
> using file extensions to distinguish between the two, or only using a
> single extension for all xquery files, are both okay too.
> Have a good weekend, all
> Joe

More information about the talk mailing list