+ > It looks like 80% of the job would be accomplished by hooking `htmlize` for
+ > the `.xml` extension. That would satisfy the `pagetype` test that causes
+ > the edit CGI to say `not an editable page`. (That happens too early for a
+ > `canedit` hook.) The `htmlize` hook could just
+ > copy in to out unchanged (this is an internal wiki, I'm not thinking hard
+ > about evil XML content right now). For extra credit, an `editcontent` hook
+ > could validate the XML. (Can an `editcontent` hook signal a content error?)
+
+ > The tricky bit seems to be to register the fact that the target file should
+ > have extension `.xml` and not `.html`. Maybe what's needed is a generalized
+ > notion of an `htmlize` hook, one that specifies its output extension as well
+ > as its input, and isn't assumed to produce html? --ChapmanFlack 17July2008
+