Re: [NTG-context] Official file ending?

On 2/4/2020 8:27 PM, kaddour kardio wrote:

Since ConTeXT is closer to plain TeX than LaTeX, it is more legitimate to got the "dot tex" than latex :)

Le mar. 4 févr. 2020 à 17:57, Pablo Rodriguez mailto:oinos@gmx.es> a écrit :

On 2/3/20 3:28 PM, Hans Hagen wrote: > On 2/3/2020 3:07 PM, Philipp A. wrote: >> Hi! >> >> Most text editors have LaTeX specific syntax highlighting, so it makes >> sense to give your ConTeXt file a ending it can be distinguished with. >> Is there a blessed one? >> >>   * .ctx: Would mirror the semi-common .ltx, but is used for XML files >>     inside of ConTeXt itself > > context ctx files are xml files indeed > >>   * .mkiv: Is that just for ConTeXt or all LuaTeX stuff? Would it make >>     sense to give text documents that extension? > > you can do that (or mkvi or lmtx or ...)

Since there are already *.mkxl files in the ConTeXt distribution, I think it may make sense to name the LMTX version MkXL.

In any case, MkXL is simpler and clearer that MkIV with LMTX. mkiv (four) : files that expect mkiv (or lmtx) mkvi (six) : mkiv (or lmtx) files that pass a filter mkxl (fourty) : files that expect lmtx mklx (sixty) : lmtx files that pass a filter

(there are some more, like template files and so) I suppose that latex syntax highlighting filters support tex and sty and maybe suffixes i'm noti aware of. So a context specific highlighter could support mkiv, mkvi, mkxk and mkvi. At least that's what I do here. Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------