I’m working through the chapter on dsdl in the v1 specification and realized that I don’t know why dsdl files have a .uavcan extension instead of a .dsdl extension? Should we support either?
We might, although it may cause confusion with document schema definition language(s). Should we vote?
We need a third option: “I don’t know”. Since I don’t know, I will desist from voting and observe from a distance.
Should we allow .dsdl as a file extension for DSDL files?
- I Don’t Know
This would be in addition to allowing
.uavcan as an extension. If this proposal is accepted we would support two and only two extensions: (
.dsdl ). These extensions, per the v1 specification, would be case-sensitive ergo we would not support (.UAVCAN, .DSDL).