html vs htm

[Doug Miller]

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.

Ummmm, no. As previously noted by several other posters, "back then" most
webservers were running some flavor of Unix, which never has been restricted
to that stupid 8.3 format.

 

[Brian Cryer]

Don't criticize if you don't know the answer yourself! In fact, he is
right! <snip>

No, he's wrong about this.

He and you are right when you say that there was a time when many operating
systems were restricted to three characters and that this is probably where
..htm came from. However to extrapolate from that to conclude that only
ancient systems use .htm and modern ones use .html is a work of fiction -
good fiction, but fiction nevertheless.

For example if you look at http://everything.explained.at/HTML/ it makes the
comment .htm was originally used because of file name restrictions - but
were are talking about DOS and FAT here - but nowhere does it mention the
idea that .html is for modern systems. The closest you get is that .htm is
an abbreviation for .html.

 

[Brian Cryer]

Is Evan Platt still remorselessly insulting people at will? <snip>

If you look at who posted what you will see that Evan has been insulted, but
has been quite restrained in his replies. The closest you could come to
accusing Evan of having insulted someone is when he pointed out the error in
someone's post. I don't consider correction to be an insult - although I
suppose pride could cause it to be taken that way.

 

[Doug Miller]

No, he's wrong about this.

He and you are right when you say that there was a time when many operating
systems were restricted to three characters

No, they're not. *Some* operating systems, yes. "Many", no.

 

[Gus Richter]

Ummmm, no. As previously noted by several other posters, "back then" most
webservers were running some flavor of Unix, which never has been restricted
to that stupid 8.3 format.

Webservers?! I repeat, who cares!? I and the link I previously provided
in order for anyone interested to read up on the details, clearly talk
about "User/PC Computer Operating Systems" and *not* about webservers.

In the first instance above I submit Mac and UNIX computers which were
using the 4-character extension and clearly indicate to be PC.

In the second instance I submit MS-DOS and IBM OS/2 which were using the
3-character extension and clearly indicate to be PC and that thereafter
NT3.5 and Win'95 removed the 3-character restriction and once again
clearly indicate to be PC.

I hope that this closes the discussion.

 

[William Gill]

If you look at who posted what you will see that Evan has been insulted,
but has been quite restrained in his replies. The closest you could come
to accusing Evan of having insulted someone is when he pointed out the
error in someone's post. I don't consider correction to be an insult -
although I suppose pride could cause it to be taken that way.

Without considering the accuracy of his first comment, or it's target,
perhaps it's the phraseology that makes some interpret it as an insult,
and possibly not so restrained.
On 6/28/2011 11:55 PM, Evan Platt wrote:

 

[Gus Richter]

He and you are right when you say that there was a time when many
operating systems were restricted to three characters and that this is
probably where .htm came from.

Basically it was MS-DOS which had this restriction and it is not
"probably" but a "fact".

However to extrapolate from that to
conclude that only ancient systems use .htm and modern ones use .html is
a work of fiction - good fiction, but fiction nevertheless.

MS-DOS in this instance is the ancient system referred to here, which
later was replaced by Win NT3.5 and Win'95 and referred to as from then
on as the modern ones. Not fiction at all.

For example if you look at http://everything.explained.at/HTML/ it makes
the comment .htm was originally used because of file name restrictions -
but were are talking about DOS and FAT here - but nowhere does it
mention the idea that .html is for modern systems. The closest you get
is that .htm is an abbreviation for .html.

The article is very brief on the subject, similarly to statements made
earlier in this discussion. Some general details have been brought
forward without having to write a complete thesis. Details may be
obtained in the link I provided earlier.

Certainly .htm is an abbreviation for .html just as .xht is for .xhtml .

 

[Doug Miller]

Webservers?! I repeat, who cares!? I and the link I previously provided
in order for anyone interested to read up on the details, clearly talk
about "User/PC Computer Operating Systems" and *not* about webservers.

Possibly you've not grasped the concept that web pages reside on webservers.

And quite clearly you've not grasped the concept that the naming conventions
in use on the machine where the files are created does not in any way affect
or restrict the names available on the webserver where they are hosted --
specifically, nothing does now, or ever did, prevent a web programmer from
creating a file called MYPAGE.HTM under MS-DOS 5.0 and uploading it to a
Unix-based webserver where it is hosted as MyPage.html .

 

[William Gill]

Ummmm, no. As previously noted by several other posters, "back then" most
webservers were running some flavor of Unix, which never has been restricted
to that stupid 8.3 format.

and MOST web pages weren't authored on the server.

If I was developing an HTML editor "way back then" I might consider 1)
default settings that save files as .html which may or may not have
complications on some significant numbers of systems, or 2) default
settings that save files as .htm which do not have complications on any
systems.

There is also the legacy effect that some developers (both page
developers, and editor developers) following an 8.3 convention out of habit.

I still use 3 character extensions, but I actually am ancient.

 

[William Gill]

And quite clearly you've not grasped the concept that the naming conventions
in use on the machine where the files are created does not in any way affect
or restrict the names available on the webserver where they are hosted --
specifically, nothing does now, or ever did, prevent a web programmer from
creating a file called MYPAGE.HTM under MS-DOS 5.0 and uploading it to a
Unix-based webserver where it is hosted as MyPage.html .

Nothing? How about a modicum of common sense?

Create pages, links, and and references using a 3 character name
extension, then upload them and spend hours insuring you changed
everything correctly, for no apparent reason.

Then there's the fun of changing servers, and no longer being on a *nix
server.

Obviously some concepts may be eluding some grasps.

 

[Tim Streater]

Nothing? How about a modicum of common sense?

Create pages, links, and and references using a 3 character name
extension, then upload them and spend hours insuring you changed
everything correctly, for no apparent reason.

The apparent reason of ensuring some consistency for the fucking users,
that's why. Who could be on any platform whatever.

Then there's the fun of changing servers, and no longer being on a *nix
server.

But that's a non-issue, isn't it. No machine that *required* 8.3 is ever
likely to have been a host. OS/2? Oh yes, that popped up some 20 years
ago and became obsolete about five minutes later.

Those Windows machines which have been capable of being hosts, have not
had, from what I've read in these threads, any reason whatever to stick
to .htm. None.

It is, as always, myopic sodding Windows programmers who can't be arsed
to seek out, let alone follow, standards.

Obviously some concepts may be eluding some grasps.

The concept of serving the user community is obviously eluding *you*.

 

[William Gill]

The apparent reason of ensuring some consistency for the fucking users,
that's why. Who could be on any platform whatever.


But that's a non-issue, isn't it. No machine that *required* 8.3 is ever
likely to have been a host. OS/2? Oh yes, that popped up some 20 years
ago and became obsolete about five minutes later.

Those Windows machines which have been capable of being hosts, have not
had, from what I've read in these threads, any reason whatever to stick
to .htm. None.

It is, as always, myopic sodding Windows programmers who can't be arsed
to seek out, let alone follow, standards.


The concept of serving the user community is obviously eluding *you*.

The "concept of serving the user community" tends to follow the KISS
principle. Let the user enter www.example.com or example.com and serve
up example.com/index.htm, example.com/index.html, example.com/index.php,
or example.com/whatever_the_hell_you_want. Most other linking to pages
beyond that is transparent to the user. As you point out, consistency is
an important factor: when the page is authored.

I don't believe I ever experienced a server that required 8.3, but seem
to remember nightmares relating to the '.3' part of things, though I may
be wrong. I honestly don't remember. However, thinking back, I think
the issue was win -> *nix transition, and may have been a case
insensitivity -> case sensitivity issue with directory and file names.

Ah yes OS/2, I have a pile of OS/2 operating system disks that never got
installed. Do you need any?

At the risk of being labeled a myopic programmer of any flavor, could
you please cite the "standards" I have failed to seek out?

Let me see if I've got this straight. You are saying one flavor of
system required 3 character extensions, and another didn't. A large
population employed the more restrictive option in their development
environment (editors, etc.) and another large population employed an
unrestricted development environment. So that later when the
restriction was (virtually) eliminated, the first group should have been
mandated to change all their software, naming, and typing habits to
conform to the "standard" established by the latter group?

Having worked extensively in both environments, I can argue the merits
and demerits of each. However, being a realist I recognize neither is
going to cease to exist no matter how hard the other closes their eyes
and wishes they did, so I don't chose to be a zealot for either.

 

[Tim Streater]

At the risk of being labeled a myopic programmer of any flavor, could
you please cite the "standards" I have failed to seek out?

The de facto .html standard, which would have been in place and in use
for some time before hosts which would in their own internal use have
typically done .xxx, would have been capable of being web servers. Since
such hosts could, so I understand from this thread, just as easily done
..html, I'm at a loss to know why they didn't.

And don't tell me it's because the user base would have been expecting
..htm. Said user base, along with the wider public, would already have
been exposed to .html.

Let me see if I've got this straight. You are saying one flavor of
system required 3 character extensions, and another didn't. A large
population employed the more restrictive option in their development
environment (editors, etc.) and another large population employed an
unrestricted development environment. So that later when the
restriction was (virtually) eliminated, the first group should have been
mandated to change all their software, naming, and typing habits to
conform to the "standard" established by the latter group?

The first group should have paid attention to what was already going on
in the wider environment and adapted to it from the beginning.

 

[dorayme]

If you look at who posted what you will see that Evan has been insulted

Thanks but no, I was merely surmising, judging from past
experience. I am sure now and then Hitler was in the right and
insulted.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Without considering the accuracy of his first comment, or it's
target, perhaps it's the phraseology that makes some interpret it as
an insult, and possibly not so restrained.
On 6/28/2011 11:55 PM, Evan Platt wrote:

Boys, please! You're not taking into consideration *who* Evan made the
statement to! Google up "richard the st00pid" or "RtS". It's Bullis!

 

[dorayme]

The apparent reason of ensuring some consistency for the fucking users,
that's why. Who could be on any platform whatever.

The rulers in Plato's Republic, seeing as they deal in the
currency of universal forms, unlike the procreating plebs in
their caves?

 

[William Gill]

Boys, please! You're not taking into consideration *who* Evan made the
statement to! Google up "richard the st00pid" or "RtS". It's Bullis!

Beauregard,

Though I won't personally comment Richard, I have observed enough to not
argue with anyone who does. I was simply pointing out the irony of
starting a conversation with "Have you ever made a correct statement?",
and someone commending them for being quite restrained.

 

[dorayme]

Beauregard,

Though I won't personally comment Richard, I have observed enough to not
argue with anyone who does. I was simply pointing out the irony of
starting a conversation with "Have you ever made a correct statement?",
and someone commending them for being quite restrained.

William, William... its no use talking to B on the subject of
Richard, he is the Chief Richard Watcher (official title is
Inquisitor General of the Richard Problem) and is quite unable to
be truly objective. You need to get at B's paymaster. I have made
some preliminary enquiries and it is not the Pope in Rome (in
fact I have just got off the phone to him, we swap Catholic and
Jewish jokes on a weekly basis). But there is some secret person
or organization and my men will uncover him or it eventually,
trust me, I would *never* lie to you.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

William, William... its no use talking to B on the subject of Richard,
he is the Chief Richard Watcher (official title is Inquisitor General
of the Richard Problem) and is quite unable to be truly objective.

Sorry, you're wrong. That is Evan's position.

 

[William Gill]

The de facto .html standard, which would have been in place and in use
for some time before hosts which would in their own internal use have
typically done .xxx, would have been capable of being web servers. Since
such hosts could, so I understand from this thread, just as easily done
.html, I'm at a loss to know why they didn't.

Now you're confusing me. "The de facto .html standard, which would have
been in place...", was it the standard (de facto or otherwise) or would
it have been the standard if it actually was in place, or just should
have been the standard because that's how Tim learned it?

And don't tell me it's because the user base would have been expecting
.htm. Said user base, along with the wider public, would already have
been exposed to .html.

No, I'm telling you that many of them didn't know the difference. They
weren't "command line cobblers" and they didn't have access to a *nix
(the Holy Grail of OS's) box . They used the defaults in whatever
editors they could find.

The first group should have paid attention to what was already going on
in the wider environment and adapted to it from the beginning.

Again, thought the server doesn't seem to have ever been the problem,
supporting any file name, you are saying people who authored on
desktops, and used editors that employed 3 character extensions, should
have been prohibited from participating until they could speak fluent
*nix, and passed whatever other entrance exam "real programmers"
presented for them? Good luck with that.

Let me pose a hypothetical. I own a business that creates specialty
editing software, and I see that much of the business world (my market)
is buying computers made by Multi-National Business Instrument (MBI). I
realize the OS for these machines is made by SoftwareforMicros (SM),
started by Gil Bates. Being a technophile I realize that another OS is
being used by the technophile community who probably wouldn't purchase
my software anyway, so I tell my customers I won't sell you anything as
long as you are using that inferior OS. Yeah right!


Sometimes the when a rush happens, things get pushed along by the tide.
I can remember lots of times when things developed and evolved long
before the standards. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the
worse. Then everyone scurried to create standards around what was
already there. I seem to remember Yucca suggesting HTML standards are
that way.

What I'm sensing here is more a resentment that the unwashed were
allowed into the sandbox, and the pure of heart still resent it.