It's completely irrelevant these days, but long file names, i.e.
anything with more than 8 characters in the name or 3 in the
extension, are implemented on FAT file systems via a messy hack. The
'real' file name is the short name (i.e. "Progra~1") and the rest of
the file name is stored in extra hidden directories, it's all very
messy and inefficient.
ISTR this came in with Windows 95, so if you want to use web servers
that run under MS-DOS, you might have a problem :)
- Korny (showing his age)
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Ian Chamberlain
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My memory is fading fast Joe, but as I recall our first windows based web
> server (from Bob Denny's book) fixed the 8.3 limitation.
>
> We did continue creating .htm for a while after that but only out of habit.
>
> I can't remember the exact date but I would quess that we have been largely
> free from that limitation for well over ten years.
>
> Regards
>
> Ian
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Joseph Ortenzi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 9:43 AM
> Subject: Re: [WSG] html vs. html
>
>
> The question wasn't about keeping file extensions in URIs it was about
> what file extension the file should have, which I am sure you will
> agree is still required as the server needs to know if it is an html,
> php, css, js, etc file doesn't it.
>
> But I completely agree, my server can serve a file.php file from
> www.domain.com/file
> as long as don't stupidly name the file the same as a directory at
> the same level.
>
> I may be that _at one time_ the windows server needed a 8.3 filename
> convention but that went out the door ages ago didn't it?
>
> PS: the subject should really be "htm vs html", no? or am I missing
> something?
> Joe
>
> On Jun 20, 2008, at 08:55, Martin Kliehm wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > wrote:
>> > > > Rob Enslin wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I recently started noticing that our CMS system
>> generated .htm pages where
>> > > > > previously the system produced .html pages. I questioned the
>> support staff
>> > > > > and was told that the W3C deemed .html as non-standard file
>> extensions (or
>> > > > > rather .htm were more-widely accepted as the standard)
>> > > >
>> > > > Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. Challenge the support staff to
>> actually point out
>> > > > where this statement from the W3C is supposed to be...
>>
>> > I'd have to agree; I'm inclined to believe that ".htm" is a
>> carryover
>> > from when Microsoft(TM) products (ie DOS) only supported file
>> > extensions up to 3 characters in length.
>> >
>> > If there is a W3C statement, I'd love to see it.
>>
>> Oh, there is. The W3C advises to avoid file extensions in URLs to
>> keep future compliant. Cool URIs don't change, you know. ;)
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI
>>
>>
>> ***
>> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
>> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> ***
>>
>
> ==
> Joe Ortenzi
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.typingthevoid.com
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>
--
Kornelis Sietsma korny at my surname dot com
kornys at gmail dot com on google chat -- kornys on skype
"I've never seen a man eat so many chicken wings"
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
