Minor: .emu extension is not the current convention

tc39 / template-for-proposals

A template for ECMAScript proposals

MIT License

120 stars 28 forks source link

Minor: .emu extension is not the current convention #6

Open littledan opened 6 years ago

littledan commented 6 years ago

All the repositories I've seen aside from @ljharb's use the .html extension. I think this template should document current practices for beginners, at least to start, rather than be the place to push new policies. However, the file extension is not very important here in any case.

ljharb commented 6 years ago

ecmarkup is decidedly not HTML. I'm fine with not using .emu, but .html is just flatly incorrect.

domenic commented 6 years ago

.html is much better. It's not flatly incorrect; it's fine to use it for dialects of HTML or HTML vocabularies involving custom elements or similar.

ExE-Boss commented 4 years ago

The thing is, ecmarkup can’t be readily displayed by browsers in any meaningful way, which is indicated by the .emu file extension.