Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-21 Thread Korny Sietsma
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: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
 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]
***



Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-21 Thread kevin mcmonagle

Hi,
Are there any free services like net renderer that show firefox 2x. 
scree captures?

-best
kevin



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-21 Thread Henrik Madsen


Hi Kevin,

http://browsershots.org/ - always handy...

Good luck,

Henrik


On 22/06/2008, at 8:48 AM, kevin mcmonagle wrote:


Hi,
Are there any free services like net renderer that show firefox 2x.  
scree captures?

-best
kevin



***
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]
***



Re: [WSG] Marking Up Poems

2008-06-21 Thread Aldona

I've been reading the marking up poems thread with interest but it seems
no one has made what seems to be the most obvious suggestion. When I was
still in class we had an exercise with a poem and used an unordered
list. Would this be a viable option? You could even have a different
list for each verse and then still do the fancy styling. What do people
think of that as an option?

IceKat



Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:

Must you Australian's *always* have the last say?  ;)


not always, but often. esp if it ends in beer and a party


Is that why what you say most often makes no sense?

:-)

Georg




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***