Comment 2 for bug 101168

The main hurdle for using our own extensions seems to be that Windows and Mac OS
do not recognize our extensions, unlike apparently Nautilus (which must be
sniffing the content to recognize it as XML).

Benefits of using .xml and .zip:

* less threatening than unassociated .slv for users; at least there is an
icon.

* something happens when you click on them; XML is opened in a browser and zip
file is opened in a zip extractor.

Benefits of using specific extensions:

* The ability for either users or software to associate tools with the
extensions that do something Silva-specific with these files, such as push them
to Docma. Powerusers who have specific XML editors will typically use a separate
extension to associate schema files with a specific format more easily.

* The ability to sort files by extension and easily distinguish these files from
other files.

* The ability to find all silva-related files using standard operating system
search techniques.

* User would be less prone to mistakes and accidentally upload a non-Silva xml
or zip file to Silva.

If Silva were a desktop application, the choice for separate extensions would be
clear, as we could make the tool-assocation and icon ourselves. Unfortunately
Silva is a web application.

One trick might be to write a simple installer that when run installs the
appropriate file associations for the silva file types on the operating system.
Users who work with .slv files a lot could then install this (it could be linked
to from the import/export screens in silva). Of course this would require
specific action by end users, and this set of users that won't do this might
exactly be those users most intimidated by non-icon associated files.