.HTML and .HTM

Discussion in 'HTML' started by The Numerator, Mar 23, 2006.

  1. I know a lot about HTML and now I'm teaching myself PHP to make my
    pages more dynamic. However, all this time, I have no clue what the
    difference is between .HTML files and .HTM files. Someone told me that
    ..HTM files were newer than .HTML files. Another source said that .HTM
    files worked better with links or something.
     
    The Numerator, Mar 23, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. The Numerator wrote:

    > I know a lot about HTML and now I'm teaching myself PHP to make my
    > pages more dynamic. However, all this time, I have no clue what the
    > difference is between .HTML files and .HTM files. Someone told me that
    > .HTM files were newer than .HTML files. Another source said that .HTM
    > files worked better with links or something.


    HTML files are HTML files, no matter what file extension they have (if they
    have one at all). A .html file extension is normal. A .htm file extension
    is typically legacy from DOS and Windows machines predating the mid-90s
    (which used filesystems which only supported three character file
    extensions). Over HTTP there are no file extensions, only URLs which might
    happen to have the characters ".html" in them as they might map directly
    onto a filesystem.

    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
     
    David Dorward, Mar 23, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, David Dorward wrote:

    [...]
    > Over HTTP there are no file extensions, only URLs which might happen
    > to have the characters ".html" in them as they might map directly
    > onto a filesystem.


    A pity that MSIE plays by totally different rules. In fact by several
    different sets of rules, depending on which version of MSIE is
    involved. I knew that there were some significant changes with XP
    SP2, but I wasn't fully aware of their implications. A discussion on
    dciwam called my attention to some new violations of RFC2616
    introduced by the XP SP2 changes, to add to the ones which were known
    about before.
    http://groups.google.co.uk/group/de...ng.misc/browse_thread/thread/6d73376bfa592bf5

    As I just learned there, and then proved for myself --

    On such a browser-like object, if you send it application/xhtml+xml
    with a .xhtml filename extension, it offers to download it; but if you
    send it with a .html extension (still with the XHTML content-type), it
    does its best to render it as HTML. Sigh.

    On my older Win2K system with IE6, on the other hand, it invites me to
    choose to either download the item or open it with Mozilla. Which by
    sheer chance is what it ought to do (for this specific content-type)
    according to RFC2616 and my own preferences settings. What a pity
    that they evidently have no intention of spreading that correct
    behaviour more widely (quite the contrary, judging from the observed
    XP-SP2 changes).
     
    Alan J. Flavell, Mar 24, 2006
    #3
  4. The Numerator

    Jim Higson Guest

    Alan J. Flavell wrote:

    > On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, David Dorward wrote:
    >
    > [...]
    >> Over HTTP there are no file extensions, only URLs which might happen
    >> to have the characters ".html" in them as they might map directly
    >> onto a filesystem.

    >
    > A pity that MSIE plays by totally different rules. In fact by several
    > different sets of rules, depending on which version of MSIE is
    > involved. I knew that there were some significant changes with XP
    > SP2, but I wasn't fully aware of their implications. A discussion on
    > dciwam called my attention to some new violations of RFC2616
    > introduced by the XP SP2 changes, to add to the ones which were known
    > about before.
    >

    http://groups.google.co.uk/group/de...ng.misc/browse_thread/thread/6d73376bfa592bf5
    >
    > As I just learned there, and then proved for myself --
    >
    > On such a browser-like object, if you send it application/xhtml+xml
    > with a .xhtml filename extension, it offers to download it; but if you
    > send it with a .html extension (still with the XHTML content-type), it
    > does its best to render it as HTML. Sigh.


    Just out of interest, what does it do if you send application/xhtml+xml with
    an extention like ".php"?
     
    Jim Higson, Mar 24, 2006
    #4
  5. The Numerator

    Jim Higson Guest

    The Numerator wrote:

    > I know a lot about HTML and now I'm teaching myself PHP to make my
    > pages more dynamic. However, all this time, I have no clue what the
    > difference is between .HTML files and .HTM files. Someone told me that
    > .HTM files were newer than .HTML files. Another source said that .HTM
    > files worked better with links or something.


    File extentions (the bit after the dot) have no special meaning on the web.
    Windows uses them, and Apache usually does, but they're not universal in
    computing.
     
    Jim Higson, Mar 24, 2006
    #5
  6. The Numerator wrote:

    > I know a lot about HTML and now I'm teaching myself PHP to make my
    > pages more dynamic. However, all this time, I have no clue what the
    > difference is between .HTML files and .HTM files. Someone told me that
    > .HTM files were newer than .HTML files. Another source said that .HTM
    > files worked better with links or something.


    A file with a name that ends in '.html' is technically just a file with a
    name that ends in '.html'. Windows and some other operating systems
    recognise a file type based on the extension. In those operating systems,
    the extension .html refers to a file containing hyper text markup language.
    In reality any file can have an extension .html, but windows and some other
    OSs may have a problem determining the type of content.

    The difference between .html and .htm... Once upon a time, microsoft
    operating systems had a 8.3 file name limitation. The 8 referring to the
    number of characters in the file name and the 3 referring to the number of
    characters in the extension.

    On my Amiga, the computer that I was using back when DOS and Windows were
    stuck with 8.3, and on many other systems, the restrictions were not as
    limiting. It made more sense to some people to use a fourth letter to
    describe the html file type, since html was already a four letter acronym.
    To transfer the file to a windows computer, the fourth character had to be
    dropped, thus the creation of .htm files.

    As far as better or worse goes, there is a very slight performance
    improvement using .htm rather than .html in your file names. The addition
    of the single character is one extra character that has to be uploaded when
    retrieving the file. If however you are that concerned with bandwidth,
    there are lots of other ways to reduce the size of your files, such as
    removing excess white space from the live pages. Leave the white space in
    your development versions, and just strip it for the live version.

    Carolyn
    --
    Carolyn Marenger
     
    Carolyn Marenger, Mar 24, 2006
    #6
  7. Alan J. Flavell wrote:
    > A pity that MSIE plays by totally different rules.


    This is only true if you assume someone else's rules are the right
    ones. At the time Desktops were dominated by Microsoft. The makers of
    the "rules" happened to be on *nix.

    Plus look at the bandwidth microsoft is saving the world elmininating
    that one character. If every HTML page being called world wide was now
    HTM the savings would be huge!

    So rather than condeming Microsoft, we should be thanking them and
    scolding anyone that uses HTML...
     
    Travis Newbury, Mar 24, 2006
    #7
  8. Travis Newbury wrote:
    > Alan J. Flavell wrote:
    >> A pity that MSIE plays by totally different rules.

    >
    > This is only true if you assume someone else's rules are the right
    > ones. At the time Desktops were dominated by Microsoft. The makers of
    > the "rules" happened to be on *nix.
    >
    > Plus look at the bandwidth microsoft is saving the world elmininating
    > that one character. If every HTML page being called world wide was now
    > HTM the savings would be huge!
    >

    [...]

    If that's the real reason you'd save even more bandwidth by configuring
    the server to serve html pages without any extension at all.

    Of course, that savings would be trivial compared to that which could be
    had if everyone optimized image sizes and used cleaner markup.

    (and yes, I know you were joking)

    Nick

    --
    Nick Theodorakis

    contact form:
    http://theodorakis.net/contact.html
     
    Nick Theodorakis, Mar 24, 2006
    #8
  9. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006, Jim Higson wrote:

    > > On such a browser-like object, if you send it
    > > application/xhtml+xml with a .xhtml filename extension, it offers
    > > to download it; but if you send it with a .html extension (still
    > > with the XHTML content-type), it does its best to render it as
    > > HTML. Sigh.

    >
    > Just out of interest, what does it do if you send
    > application/xhtml+xml with an extention like ".php"?


    Just how "like" .php do you need it to be? (I couldn't - at least not
    within a limited amount of fiddling - persuade our server not to parse
    the file for PHP if I gave it that filename extension.)

    But I wouldn't have expected PHP to have any special meaning to
    MessIE. If I try some oddball filename extension, which I've also
    configured in our server to be sent as the XHTML content-type,
    application/xhtml+xml, then MessIE (XP SP2 IE6) offers to download
    this "unknown file type".
    http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/tests/karlsruhe.karl

    However, if in Windows I create[1] a new "File Type", with filename
    extension .karl, and associate it with a web browser, say Firefox,
    then MessIE offers the option to open the file. If I take that
    option, it is evident that MessIE has downloaded a temporary copy to
    file, and has then invoked Firefox to open the temporary file.

    This is almost staggering towards the behaviour that the web
    interworking specifications require, and what www-compatible browsers
    have always implemented - what is wrong with IE is that it's going via
    the filename extension - when, according to RFC2616, it is required to
    honour the MIME type, without consideration of any "filename
    extension" which it might discern in the URL.

    h t h

    [1] e.g Windows control panel> Folder options> File Types
     
    Alan J. Flavell, Mar 24, 2006
    #9
  10. The Numerator

    Andy Dingley Guest

    The Numerator wrote:
    > what the difference is between .HTML files and .HTM files.


    There is no general difference. Absolutely no difference. If there
    was, then we'd all know it and we wouldn't keep worrying about whether
    there was or not.

    Use one and be consistent. Inconsistency here _is_ a nuisance.

    Many years ago, some flavours of Windows had a preference for .htm as
    only <=3 character extensions had good support. This is no longer the
    case.
     
    Andy Dingley, Mar 24, 2006
    #10
  11. Nick Theodorakis wrote:
    > Travis Newbury wrote:
    >> Alan J. Flavell wrote:
    >>> A pity that MSIE plays by totally different rules.

    >>
    >> This is only true if you assume someone else's rules are the right
    >> ones. At the time Desktops were dominated by Microsoft. The makers of
    >> the "rules" happened to be on *nix.
    >>
    >> Plus look at the bandwidth microsoft is saving the world elmininating
    >> that one character. If every HTML page being called world wide was now
    >> HTM the savings would be huge!
    >>

    > [...]
    >
    > If that's the real reason you'd save even more bandwidth by configuring
    > the server to serve html pages without any extension at all.
    >
    > Of course, that savings would be trivial compared to that which could be
    > had if everyone optimized image sizes and used cleaner markup.
    >
    > (and yes, I know you were joking)


    Why should I optimize? MS Publisher does a dandy job of keeping all the
    styling handy right there interspersed throughout my markup! And why
    bother resampling those 3000+ pixel on a side images when I can
    miraculously make instant thumbnails with width and height attributes?
    Then I can fit 50 or more images on a page!

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Mar 24, 2006
    #11
  12. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006, Travis Newbury wrote:

    > Alan J. Flavell wrote:
    > > A pity that MSIE plays by totally different rules.

    >
    > This is only true if you assume someone else's rules are the right
    > ones. At the time Desktops were dominated by Microsoft. The makers
    > of the "rules" happened to be on *nix.


    I suspect that you're being ironic. Unfortunately there may be many
    readers who know so little history that they might literally believe
    you.

    Have a look at
    http://www.w3.org/History/19921103-hypertext/hypertext/WWW/Status.html
    and see if you can discern dominance of any particular OS. NeXT,
    VAX/VMS, IBM VM/CMS, Macintosh, all feature in different ways.

    (P.s the claim made in that page that the VM/CMS browser was
    non-existent was not really true. Some of us supported a port of the
    W3 client to VM/CMS: it wasn't very good, but it certainly wasn't
    "nonexistant"(sic) as that document claims. In fact, see
    http://www.w3.org/History/19921103-hypertext/hypertext/WWW/LineMode/vm-cms/Overview.html
    But that's all a long time ago now)

    But the MIME and HTTP specifications are not just a private affair of
    the WWW - they have proper IETF standards-track specifications about
    their behaviour on the Internet. They are carefully defined to be
    rather OS-agnostic. *If* the claim had been true that they were
    unix-centric, do you suppose they would have defined the canonical
    newline representation to be CRLF? Surely it would have been LF
    alone, just as it is in unix?

    > Plus look at the bandwidth microsoft is saving the world
    > elmininating that one character. If every HTML page being called
    > world wide was now HTM the savings would be huge!
    >
    > So rather than condeming Microsoft, we should be thanking them and
    > scolding anyone that uses HTML...


    I know you're joking, really, but...

    We would be entitled to scold /anyone/ who uses filename extensions in
    their URLs. To anyone who takes theory as more important than
    practice, it's clear that they have no business being there at all.

    (If you /really/ care about network bandwidth, you should be aware
    that most browsers nowadays support gzip compression, and (x)HTML
    lends itself very well to such compression. You could save file space
    too, in that way).
     
    Alan J. Flavell, Mar 24, 2006
    #12
  13. The Numerator

    Matt Clara Guest

    "Alan J. Flavell" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Fri, 24 Mar 2006, Travis Newbury wrote:
    >
    > > Alan J. Flavell wrote:
    > > > A pity that MSIE plays by totally different rules.

    > >
    > > This is only true if you assume someone else's rules are the right
    > > ones. At the time Desktops were dominated by Microsoft. The makers
    > > of the "rules" happened to be on *nix.

    >
    > I suspect that you're being ironic. Unfortunately there may be many
    > readers who know so little history that they might literally believe
    > you.
    >
    > Have a look at
    > http://www.w3.org/History/19921103-hypertext/hypertext/WWW/Status.html
    > and see if you can discern dominance of any particular OS. NeXT,
    > VAX/VMS, IBM VM/CMS, Macintosh, all feature in different ways.
    >
    > (P.s the claim made in that page that the VM/CMS browser was
    > non-existent was not really true. Some of us supported a port of the
    > W3 client to VM/CMS: it wasn't very good, but it certainly wasn't
    > "nonexistant"(sic) as that document claims. In fact, see
    >

    http://www.w3.org/History/19921103-hypertext/hypertext/WWW/LineMode/vm-cms/Overview.html
    > But that's all a long time ago now)
    >
    > But the MIME and HTTP specifications are not just a private affair of
    > the WWW - they have proper IETF standards-track specifications about
    > their behaviour on the Internet. They are carefully defined to be
    > rather OS-agnostic. *If* the claim had been true that they were
    > unix-centric, do you suppose they would have defined the canonical
    > newline representation to be CRLF? Surely it would have been LF
    > alone, just as it is in unix?
    >
    > > Plus look at the bandwidth microsoft is saving the world
    > > elmininating that one character. If every HTML page being called
    > > world wide was now HTM the savings would be huge!
    > >
    > > So rather than condeming Microsoft, we should be thanking them and
    > > scolding anyone that uses HTML...

    >
    > I know you're joking, really, but...
    >
    > We would be entitled to scold /anyone/ who uses filename extensions in
    > their URLs. To anyone who takes theory as more important than
    > practice, it's clear that they have no business being there at all.
    >
    > (If you /really/ care about network bandwidth, you should be aware
    > that most browsers nowadays support gzip compression, and (x)HTML
    > lends itself very well to such compression. You could save file space
    > too, in that way).


    Yup, Microsoft has never been concerned with the end user's bandwidth. Take
    a look at this code I found on the site where I work. It was created by
    copying and pasting directly from MS Word to a WYSIWYG editor:

    <p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2;
    tab-stops: list .5in"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial;
    mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';
    mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language:
    AR-SA"><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size="2">To request a Compliance
    Inspection, or Contact, please call the EAB Hotline at 866-325-0023 or email
    at</font> <a href="mailto:blah at michigan.gov"><font face="Arial,
    Helvetica" size="2"></font></a><font face="Arial,
    Helvetica" size="2">.</font></span></p>

    All that to mark up a single sentence. Amazing.

    --
    Regards,
    Matt Clara
    www.mattclara.com
     
    Matt Clara, Mar 24, 2006
    #13
  14. The Numerator

    kchayka Guest

    Matt Clara wrote:
    >
    > Take
    > a look at this code I found on the site where I work. It was created by
    > copying and pasting directly from MS Word to a WYSIWYG editor:


    One of my favorite examples of MS bloat was an HTML email I received.
    Including headers, it was over 9000 bytes. The actual message content
    was a single sentence of less than 100 bytes.

    According to the headers, it was created in MS Word. Unbelievable. :)

    --
    Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
    Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
     
    kchayka, Mar 25, 2006
    #14
  15. OT: Bloat (was Re: .HTML and .HTM)

    While the city slept, kchayka () feverishly typed...

    > One of my favorite examples of MS bloat was an HTML email I received.
    > Including headers, it was over 9000 bytes. The actual message content
    > was a single sentence of less than 100 bytes.


    I used to work in a government office here in the UK. Being Civil Service,
    there were naturally thousands of users on the overall network. One day we
    all got an email from one of the admins to warn us that - although it was
    fun to add little bits of clipart and other such things to emails, making
    them a little less dreary to the reader - this did in fact increase the size
    of the email which was significant when it was being sent to such a large
    number of people - causing the servers to creak...

    This message went on to a list of bullet points on good and bad email
    practice, and how to get a message across without increasing the load on the
    servers so much. In all, it was a good concise message, about 10-15 lines
    long.

    Unfortunately - and with a most elegant irony - this message was in the form
    of a 20k Word doc attached to the email!!!!! Oh how I giggled...

    Cheers,
    Nige

    --
    Nigel Moss http://www.nigenet.org.uk
    Mail address will bounce. | Take the DOG. out!
    "Your mother ate my dog!", "Not all of him!"
     
    nice.guy.nige, Mar 27, 2006
    #15
  16. The Numerator

    trippy Guest

    Re: OT: Bloat (was Re: .HTML and .HTM)

    In article <44280c4f$0$94756$>,
    nice.guy.nige took the hamburger, threw it on the grill, and I said "Oh
    wow"...

    > While the city slept, kchayka () feverishly typed...
    >
    > > One of my favorite examples of MS bloat was an HTML email I received.
    > > Including headers, it was over 9000 bytes. The actual message content
    > > was a single sentence of less than 100 bytes.

    >
    > I used to work in a government office here in the UK. Being Civil Service,
    > there were naturally thousands of users on the overall network. One day we
    > all got an email from one of the admins to warn us that - although it was
    > fun to add little bits of clipart and other such things to emails, making
    > them a little less dreary to the reader - this did in fact increase the size
    > of the email which was significant when it was being sent to such a large
    > number of people - causing the servers to creak...
    >
    > This message went on to a list of bullet points on good and bad email
    > practice, and how to get a message across without increasing the load on the
    > servers so much. In all, it was a good concise message, about 10-15 lines
    > long.
    >
    > Unfortunately - and with a most elegant irony - this message was in the form
    > of a 20k Word doc attached to the email!!!!! Oh how I giggled...


    That's insane. Wow.

    >
    > Cheers,
    > Nige
    >
    >


    --
    trippy
    mhm31x9 Smeeter#29 WSD#30
    sTaRShInE_mOOnBeAm aT HoTmAil dOt CoM

    NP: "The Way It Is" -- Tesla

    "Now, technology's getting better all the time and that's fine,
    but most of the time all you need is a stick of gum, a pocketknife,
    and a smile."

    -- Robert Redford "Spy Game"
     
    trippy, Mar 28, 2006
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jason Honn
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,321
    Teemu Keiski
    Apr 4, 2005
  2. Phil Di Guillielmo
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    8,485
    Aaron J. Scott
    Aug 27, 2003
  3. bender

    htm or html

    bender, Oct 20, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    752
    e n | c k m a
    Oct 22, 2003
  4. =?Utf-8?B?TWlrZQ==?=
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    324
    David
    Apr 9, 2007
  5. Replies:
    6
    Views:
    189
    Dr.Ruud
    Feb 6, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page