html vs htm

[don]

What is the difference betwenn a file that ends in .html and .htm? I
noticed that when trying to save a web page that the name of it ended in
..htm

 

[MG]

What is the difference betwenn a file that ends in .html and .htm? I
noticed that when trying to save a web page that the name of it ended in
.htm

No difference. .html is more common now days.

The .htm is historical. Microsoft's 8.3 file format from the days of DOS.

MG

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

What is the difference betwenn a file that ends in .html and .htm?

The difference is the letter "l" in the filename.

You can make the difference matter if you like. For example, you could
have both .htm and .html files in the same directory, for windows-1252
encoded and utf-8 encoded documents, respectively, and you could put the
lines

AddType text/html;charset=windows-1252 HTM
AddType text/html;charset=utf-8 HTML

into the .htaccess file of that directory, if the files are on web
server running Apache.

I noticed that when trying to save a web page that the name of it ended in
.htm

That depends on the browser and on the saving mode.

 

[richard]

What is the difference betwenn a file that ends in .html and .htm? I
noticed that when trying to save a web page that the name of it ended in
.htm

htm is for ancient systems while html is for modern systems.
either work just the same.

 

[Gus Richter]

Where do you come up with this?

Have you ever made a correct statement?

Don't criticize if you don't know the answer yourself! In fact, he is
right! Way back, the Operating System(s) were set up to handle only
three-character extensions. For quite some time now, they have been able
to *also* handle four- or five-character extensions such as html and
xhtml . In fact, you may encounter the shortened version of .xhtml as
..xht . Read up on Filename Extensions:

<http://tinyurl.com/3jssa72>

 

[Tim Streater]

Don't criticize if you don't know the answer yourself! In fact, he is
right! Way back, the Operating System(s) were set up to handle only
three-character extensions. For quite some time now, they have been able
to *also* handle four- or five-character extensions such as html and
xhtml . In fact, you may encounter the shortened version of .xhtml as
.xht . Read up on Filename Extensions:

<http://tinyurl.com/3jssa72>

Dear oh dear oh dear. That may be or have been the case for rubbish
operating systems. Proper ones have never had any restrictions or
requirements for extensions at all, leaving it strictly for the user to
decide whether to use one or not.

 

[richard]

Where do you come up with this?

Have you ever made a correct statement?

bwaaaahahahaha
the great and mighty know it all evan splatt gets his butt kicked, yet
again.
I'll bet the dufus doesn't even know that in earlier years of the internet,
it was an absolute must to use "WWW", where now it is an option.

I don't know when the option happened for htm/html, but I do recall that
systems were quite picky. If you wanted to put up a page, it had to be
"htm". If you included the "l", you wound up with a 404.

 

[Tim Streater]

bwaaaahahahaha
the great and mighty know it all evan splatt gets his butt kicked, yet
again.
I'll bet the dufus doesn't even know that in earlier years of the internet,
it was an absolute must to use "WWW", where now it is an option.

I doubt if that is true.

I don't know when the option happened for htm/html,

There was no "option" and it didn't "happen".

but I do recall that
systems were quite picky. If you wanted to put up a page, it had to be
"htm". If you included the "l", you wound up with a 404.

Any system expects you to request the proper filename, that's all. If
the system has a file called wiggy.htm and you ask for wiggy.html, why
would anyone expect anything other than a 404? And vice versa.

Doubtless there are config settings you can use to have a server map one
extension to the other, but that's beside the point.

Until Windows (eventually) became sufficiently un-rubbishy so it could
serve up web pages, all web pages IME had the .html extension.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

bwaaaahahahaha
the great and mighty know it all evan splatt gets his butt kicked, yet
again.
I'll bet the dufus doesn't even know that in earlier years of the
internet, it was an absolute must to use "WWW", where now it is an
option.

Anyone with an ounce of smarts knows that 'www.' is a sub-domain. My
first web site, still operational since 1997, never required a 'www.'.

I don't know when the option happened for htm/html,

It happened when you decided to use Windows, which wasn't smart enough
to know anything beyond 3-character extensions. "htm" users are
typically Windows users .. people using FrontPage and similar which
automatically generated "Windows-compliant" filenames.

but I do recall that systems were quite picky. If you wanted to put up
a page, it had to be "htm". If you included the "l", you wound up
with a 404.

Wrong again, RtS. Non-Windows *web servers* never had a restriction on
number of characters in a file extension, or as already mentioned,
needing a file extension at all. I suggest you think outside the Windows
box for once. (Oh, sorry, you're not capable of that, and there is
evidence. Remember when you had to have your host reformat your server
from Linux/Apache to Windows/IIS because you couldn't maintain it
yourself?)

You'd only get a 404 if:
you *named a file*: index.htm
and entered: index.html
in your browser.

For the OP: use "html" ...

 

[richard]

Anyone with an ounce of smarts knows that 'www.' is a sub-domain. My
first web site, still operational since 1997, never required a 'www.'.


It happened when you decided to use Windows, which wasn't smart enough
to know anything beyond 3-character extensions. "htm" users are
typically Windows users .. people using FrontPage and similar which
automatically generated "Windows-compliant" filenames.


Wrong again, RtS. Non-Windows *web servers* never had a restriction on
number of characters in a file extension, or as already mentioned,
needing a file extension at all. I suggest you think outside the Windows
box for once. (Oh, sorry, you're not capable of that, and there is
evidence. Remember when you had to have your host reformat your server
from Linux/Apache to Windows/IIS because you couldn't maintain it
yourself?)

You'd only get a 404 if:
you *named a file*: index.htm
and entered: index.html
in your browser.

For the OP: use "html" ...

I'm not sure exactly which year it was, but until then, ICANN did require
the WWW. I recall hearing about this on TechTv (now G4).
My first website required it. When did Tivo come out? It was about that
time.


On my server, I have the option of turning "WWW" on or off.
In some cases, including the WWW will get you a "page not found" error in
your browser.
This is due to the setting of the server.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Anyone with an ounce of smarts knows that 'www.' is a sub-domain. My
first web site, still operational since 1997, never required a 'www.'.


It happened when you decided to use Windows, which wasn't smart enough
to know anything beyond 3-character extensions. "htm" users are
typically Windows users .. people using FrontPage and similar which
automatically generated "Windows-compliant" filenames.


Wrong again, RtS. Non-Windows *web servers* never had a restriction on
number of characters in a file extension, or as already mentioned,
needing a file extension at all. I suggest you think outside the Windows
box for once. (Oh, sorry, you're not capable of that, and there is
evidence. Remember when you had to have your host reformat your server
from Linux/Apache to Windows/IIS because you couldn't maintain it
yourself?)

You'd only get a 404 if:
you *named a file*: index.htm
and entered: index.html
in your browser.

To illustrate BTS's point:

<http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/file.WithRandomExtension>

 

[William Gill]

It happened when you decided to use Windows, which wasn't smart enough
to know anything beyond 3-character extensions. "htm" users are
typically Windows users .. people using FrontPage and similar which
automatically generated "Windows-compliant" filenames.


Wrong again, RtS. Non-Windows *web servers* never had a restriction on
number of characters in a file extension, or as already mentioned,
needing a file extension at all. I suggest you think outside the Windows
box for once. (Oh, sorry, you're not capable of that, and there is
evidence. Remember when you had to have your host reformat your server
from Linux/Apache to Windows/IIS because you couldn't maintain it
yourself?)

You'd only get a 404 if:
you *named a file*: index.htm
and entered: index.html
in your browser.

For the OP: use "html" ...

Beauregard,

The 8.3 DOS legacy restricted file names at the point where the files
were created. Whether in FrontPage, notepad, or whatever. So if
someone created the page on a DOS descendant system and hosted on *nix
it didn't make sense to convert to .html, and introduce so much
opportunity for error.

A while back I had a mixed bag on my development network, both *nix and
win boxes. I had to decide on a naming convention and went with 8.3
because it worked everywhere. I still use .htm (and .php), mostly out
of habit.

I sometimes wonder about the anti-Redmond bias. Not that Mr.G is a
saint, or needs defending, but they did a lot to open up computing. You
may not remember when IT professionals (before they were called IT
professionals) were the only ones who could sit and "speak" the
complicated hieroglyphics of computers, and because of that they could
write their own ticket. Or that every time someone developed a piece of
hardware to connect to a system, it required complicated custom software
to work, and extremely complex compatibility tables to insure devices
didn't conflict (they usually did anyway).

I once had a programmer who faithfully met with me weekly on a project,
and swore his code (written in an obscure language on the mainframe) was
flawless. Yet my reports were garbage. I took the manual home one
weekend, and on Monday we began speaking the same language. His code
was doing what he told it to do, he just wasn't telling it to do enough
(e.g. you shouldn't be able to finish something before you start it) He
then introduced me to a brand new AT&T computer operating system called
UNIX.

After that I learned to do serious damage in a half dozen high level
languages (and several assembly languages), just for kicks.

My point, MS took a 60% target approach. They didn't aim for the most
proficient or the totally clueless, they shot for the 60% "in the
middle." They developed standard interfaces that hardware manufactures
could write their "drivers" to meet, a sort of object orientation long
before OOP. I suspect some of the top 20% resented losing their
monopoly, and the bottom 20% resented being ignored,(I also suspect
there are representatives from both of these groups in this NG) but no
one can reasonably argue that people like Mr. G, and Mr. Torvalds didn't
help blow the whole industry wide open.

Similarly, but totally unrelated, I remember a Japanese motorcycle
company trying to enter the U.S. market, having to compete with
established U.S. and British "iron". They introduced a 50cc cycle that
was almost a scooter, had young co-eds ride and advertise them, and
suddenly you didn't have to wear leather underwear, have scars and
tattoos, with bugs in your teeth to ride a motorcycle. Amazingly, after
they dented the market the "Honda 50" disappeared, but now there are
thousands of motorcycles, or varying make and model on the road. Honda
had done in 1 year, what Harley and the AMA had been attempting to do
for decades, destigmatized motorcycle riders, and the 1%ers (the AMA
stated that 99% of motorcyclists were law-abiding citizens) didn't like it.

I have owned Triumphs, Harleys, and Hondas over the past 50 years, and
though I loved my Bonneville "Limey Leak" (it was dripping oil on the
showroom floor), and prefer my Harley Road King, I don't resent Honda
for introducing motorcycling to a whole new group of riders. Even if I
think many of them aren't qualified to walk, let alone ride.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Beauregard,

The 8.3 DOS legacy restricted file names at the point where the files
were created. Whether in FrontPage, notepad, or whatever. So if
someone created the page on a DOS descendant system and hosted on *nix
it didn't make sense to convert to .html, and introduce so much
opportunity for error.

Remember I said "typically ... using FrontPage and similar" which would
include Notepad.

Sure, there is no reason to add an "l" if the page/site was created on a
8.3 system, but apparently our OP can do either and just wanted to know.

 

[Norman Peelman]

bwaaaahahahaha
the great and mighty know it all evan splatt gets his butt kicked, yet
again.
I'll bet the dufus doesn't even know that in earlier years of the internet,
it was an absolute must to use "WWW", where now it is an option.

www.example.com

Anything preceding example.com is a subdomain. Domains are read
backwards.

..com = Top Level Domain
example.com = subdomain of .com
www.example.com = subdomain of example.com


So while example.com may (and more likely should) refer to an
internal (local) network (domain). www.example.com is viewable by the
world (World Wide Web) and is more than likely a different document
root/site.

I don't know when the option happened for htm/html, but I do recall that
systems were quite picky. If you wanted to put up a page, it had to be
"htm". If you included the "l", you wound up with a 404.

If a filename (page) does not exist by that name thatÅ› what you
normally get.

 

[Gus Richter]

ROTFLOL... Really?

I'm fairly confident the early versions of *nix, which most webservers
were run on, had no such limitation.

"Fairly confident" is totally useless as is your "ROTFLOL".
Read the first link that comes up in the Google Search I provided in the
link I provided.

I'm quite familiar with filename extensions, thanks.

You had me fooled, what with you offering only an insult to the OP
without a proper answer.

 

[dorayme]

On 6/29/2011 9:09 AM, Evan Platt wrote: ....


You had me fooled, what with you offering only an insult to the OP
without a proper answer.

Is Evan Platt still remorselessly insulting people at will? Now
and then, it is impossible to avoid an insult or two but, at
least, one ought to then go see one's rabbi or imam or priest.
After a session with Dr Stockton or Pointed Ears, I always make a
booking.

 

[Adrienne Boswell]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed dorayme <[email protected]>
writing in 211.hsd1.mi.comcast.net:

After a session with Dr Stockton or Pointed Ears, I always make a
booking.

Amen to that!

 

[Gus Richter]

Yes. I did. Thank you for proving my point:

"When the Internet age first arrived, those using Windows systems that
were still restricted to 8.3 filename formats had to create web pages
with names ending in .HTM, while those using Macintosh or UNIX
computers could use the recommended .html filename extension. "

So, gee, that backs up my statement "I'm fairly confident the early
versions of *nix, which most webservers were run on, had no such
limitation."

The point is, who cares? The only ones that really mattered back then
were MS-DOS and IBM's OS/2 which had a 3-character extension limit. With
Win NT3.5 and Win 95 the limit was removed.

 

[Gus Richter]

Is Evan Platt still remorselessly insulting people at will? Now
and then, it is impossible to avoid an insult or two but, at
least, one ought to then go see one's rabbi or imam or priest.
After a session with Dr Stockton or Pointed Ears, I always make a
booking.

When it looks to be going in circles or going off on a tangent, I try to
extricate myself. I don't have the tenacity, composure and stamina as
you exhibit in those discourses.

 

[Gus Richter]

So you can't admit that I was right. Got it.

You just don't get it, but that's all right.
Extraction completed.