Re: [WSG] html vs. html <- neither.
Who is using Red Dot for CMS? We recently went through a merger of several companies (UNIFI) and some of us use Red Dot, and some (us here in Cincinnati) use Stellent - currently we are going through upgrade of older Stellent to Oracle CMS. Any insights on these two CMS? Anya V. Gerasimchuk Web Designer, IT - Web Shared Services UNIFI Information Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] (513) 595 -2391 Joe Ortenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/03/2008 02:36 AM Please respond to wsg@webstandardsgroup.org To wsg@webstandardsgroup.org cc Subjec Re: [WSG] html vs. html <- neither. Sounds like Red Dot... On Jun 20 2008, at 11:25, Rob Enslin wrote: I must say that I find it quite alarming that any professional web developers believe that a CMS must produce URLs for dynamically generated pages (not files) which say .htm or .html on the end. Dave, it's not that they (CMS vendor) believes it needs to be done or indeed compulsory, it's merely a case of 'this is what our system produces by deflault'. I just happened to notice the change and flagged it up with them as simply asked why? Incidently, in the CMS I'm refering to it allows the administrator to remove extensions if desired. So, I could have http://mysite.com/register as a web page. Rob 2008/6/20 Dave Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: I must say that I find it quite alarming that any professional web developers believe that a CMS must produce URLs for dynamically generated pages (not files) which say .htm or .html on the end. My colleagues and I have "adopted" sites built by such developers, and I can tell you that misconceptions like the necessity of .htm or .html suffices were only the tip of iceberg. If a site is actually a legacy static site made up of files, then . might be relevant (although setting up webserver rules to abstract away file suffice is pretty trivial, and it's much nicer for URL readability and SEO), but nowadays if you're building a dynamic site on a decent CMS, adding the .html (never .htm - that demonstrates dubious taste in server OSs) to the end of URLs for dynamically generated content is painfully old school and, as the W3C and other posters have pointed out, quite unnecessary - sort of like a "www" on the front of a web URL is (or should be). Dave Rob Enslin wrote: Hi peeps, 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) Is this true? Any thoughts? Cheers, Rob -- Rob Enslin Blog: http://enslin.co.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/robenslin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Dave Lane = Egressive Ltd = [EMAIL PROTECTED] = m: +64 21 229 8147 p: +64 3 9633733 = Linux: it just tastes better = nosoftwarepatents http://egressive.com we only use open standards: http://w3.org Effusion Group Founding Member === http://effusiongroup.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Rob Enslin Blog: http://enslin.co.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/robenslin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.typingthevoid.com www.joiz.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] ***
Re: [WSG] html vs. html <- neither.
Sounds like Red Dot... On Jun 20 2008, at 11:25, Rob Enslin wrote: I must say that I find it quite alarming that any professional web developers believe that a CMS must produce URLs for dynamically generated pages (not files) which say .htm or .html on the end. Dave, it's not that they (CMS vendor) believes it needs to be done or indeed compulsory, it's merely a case of 'this is what our system produces by deflault'. I just happened to notice the change and flagged it up with them as simply asked why? Incidently, in the CMS I'm refering to it allows the administrator to remove extensions if desired. So, I could have http://mysite.com/ register as a web page. Rob 2008/6/20 Dave Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: I must say that I find it quite alarming that any professional web developers believe that a CMS must produce URLs for dynamically generated pages (not files) which say .htm or .html on the end. My colleagues and I have "adopted" sites built by such developers, and I can tell you that misconceptions like the necessity of .htm or .html suffices were only the tip of iceberg. If a site is actually a legacy static site made up of files, then . might be relevant (although setting up webserver rules to abstract away file suffice is pretty trivial, and it's much nicer for URL readability and SEO), but nowadays if you're building a dynamic site on a decent CMS, adding the .html (never .htm - that demonstrates dubious taste in server OSs) to the end of URLs for dynamically generated content is painfully old school and, as the W3C and other posters have pointed out, quite unnecessary - sort of like a "www" on the front of a web URL is (or should be). Dave Rob Enslin wrote: Hi peeps, 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) Is this true? Any thoughts? Cheers, Rob -- Rob Enslin Blog: http://enslin.co.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/robenslin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Dave Lane = Egressive Ltd = [EMAIL PROTECTED] = m: +64 21 229 8147 p: +64 3 9633733 = Linux: it just tastes better = nosoftwarepatents http://egressive.com we only use open standards: http://w3.org Effusion Group Founding Member === http://effusiongroup.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Rob Enslin Blog: http://enslin.co.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/robenslin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.typingthevoid.com www.joiz.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] html vs. html
Just to point out something that hasn't been mentioned as far as I can see -- of course, you can map file types to extensions on a webserver however you like. You could set .JPG to serve as HTML if you wanted. The original creators of Blogger, Pyra, used ".pyra" as their extension so I have no idea which language they were using. The problem comes when your users want to download the page for their own purposes. Their computer is not going to know what to do with a ".pyra" file. So, people may have arrived at a policy of web pages having 8.3-style names, just to make it easier for users to save files to their hard disks, back in the early days of Windows. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Korny Sietsma Sent: Saturday, 21 June 2008 5:20 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] html vs. html 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] >
Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: [WSG] html vs. html
I used to have a browser extension that depended on java that could take really nice screen shots. Either a whole webpage or just the viewport. I'm sure you could find it on the mozilla extensions website. Matijs On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 2:48 AM, kevin mcmonagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: SPAM-LOW: Re: [WSG] html vs. html
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: SPAM-LOW: Re: [WSG] html vs. html
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: [WSG] html vs. html
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] ***
Re: [WSG] html vs. html
Excuse me, on my previous response to Alastair Campbell I meant to include . Also for Zeus James -- http://jp29.org/ Semantic Web Page Authoring ... Validated: HTML/XHTML/XHTML+RDFa ~ CSS ~ RDF/XML - DC Metadata/RSS Feed *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] html vs. html
Alastair Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: .. on Apache at least (and I would assume IIS) you can set the > mime-type text/html for any file extension, or no file extension. I > would guess that you can probably set it for a whole directory or > filepath as well ... James -- http://jp29.org/ Semantic Web Page Authoring ... Validated: HTML/XHTML/XHTML+RDFa ~ CSS ~ RDF/XML - DC Metadata/RSS Feed *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] html vs. html
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Joseph Ortenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. Nope, on Apache at least (and I would assume IIS) you can set the mime-type text/html for any file extension, or no file extension. I would guess that you can probably set it for a whole directory or filepath as well. You could do something like this in the Apache config to set the default mime type used [1]: DefaultType text/html You could even fool people into thinking you were running static files when you're actually using PHP [2]: AddHandler php5-script html Apache is a very powerful beast in that regard. -Alastair 1] http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/core.html#defaulttype 2] http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_mime.html#addtype *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] html vs. html <- neither.
> > I must say that I find it quite alarming that any professional web > developers believe that a CMS must produce URLs for dynamically generated > pages (not files) which say .htm or .html on the end. Dave, it's not that they (CMS vendor) believes it needs to be done or indeed compulsory, it's merely a case of 'this is what our system produces by deflault'. I just happened to notice the change and flagged it up with them as simply asked why? Incidently, in the CMS I'm refering to it allows the administrator to remove extensions if desired. So, I could have http://mysite.com/register as a web page. Rob 2008/6/20 Dave Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I must say that I find it quite alarming that any professional web > developers believe that a CMS must produce URLs for dynamically generated > pages (not files) which say .htm or .html on the end. > > My colleagues and I have "adopted" sites built by such developers, and I > can tell you that misconceptions like the necessity of .htm or .html > suffices were only the tip of iceberg. > > If a site is actually a legacy static site made up of files, then . > might be relevant (although setting up webserver rules to abstract away file > suffice is pretty trivial, and it's much nicer for URL readability and SEO), > but nowadays if you're building a dynamic site on a decent CMS, adding the > .html (never .htm - that demonstrates dubious taste in server OSs) to the > end of URLs for dynamically generated content is painfully old school and, > as the W3C and other posters have pointed out, quite unnecessary - sort of > like a "www" on the front of a web URL is (or should be). > > Dave > > Rob Enslin wrote: > >> Hi peeps, >> >> 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) >> >> Is this true? Any thoughts? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Rob >> >> -- >> Rob Enslin >> Blog: http://enslin.co.uk >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/robenslin >> *** >> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm >> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm >> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> *** >> > > -- > Dave Lane = Egressive Ltd = [EMAIL PROTECTED] = m: +64 21 229 8147 > p: +64 3 9633733 = Linux: it just tastes better = nosoftwarepatents > http://egressive.com we only use open standards: http://w3.org > Effusion Group Founding Member === http://effusiongroup.com > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** > > -- Rob Enslin Blog: http://enslin.co.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/robenslin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] html vs. html
One can only ask. JOe On Jun 20, 2008, at 11:16, Rob Enslin wrote: Joe wrote: PS: the subject should really be "htm vs html", no? or am I missing something? Yes - should have been htm vs html. And, I don't feel comfortable revealing the CMS vendor as we currently have a *great* working relationship and don't want to upset that ;-) [sure you understand] Rob 2008/6/20 Joseph Ortenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Exactly! But as you know, old conventions die hard! Joe On Jun 20, 2008, at 10:19, Ian Chamberlain 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] *** == 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] *** -- Rob Enslin Blog: http://enslin.co.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/robenslin *** 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] ***
Re: [WSG] html vs. html
> > Joe wrote: PS: the subject should really be "htm vs html", no? or am I > missing something? > Yes - should have been htm vs html. And, I don't feel comfortable revealing the CMS vendor as we currently have a *great* working relationship and don't want to upset that ;-) [sure you understand] Rob 2008/6/20 Joseph Ortenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Exactly! > > But as you know, old conventions die hard! > > Joe > > > > On Jun 20, 2008, at 10:19, Ian Chamberlain 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] >> *** >> >> > == > 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] > *** > > -- Rob Enslin Blog: http://enslin.co.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/robenslin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] html vs. html <- neither.
I must say that I find it quite alarming that any professional web developers believe that a CMS must produce URLs for dynamically generated pages (not files) which say .htm or .html on the end. My colleagues and I have "adopted" sites built by such developers, and I can tell you that misconceptions like the necessity of .htm or .html suffices were only the tip of iceberg. If a site is actually a legacy static site made up of files, then . might be relevant (although setting up webserver rules to abstract away file suffice is pretty trivial, and it's much nicer for URL readability and SEO), but nowadays if you're building a dynamic site on a decent CMS, adding the .html (never .htm - that demonstrates dubious taste in server OSs) to the end of URLs for dynamically generated content is painfully old school and, as the W3C and other posters have pointed out, quite unnecessary - sort of like a "www" on the front of a web URL is (or should be). Dave Rob Enslin wrote: Hi peeps, 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) Is this true? Any thoughts? Cheers, Rob -- Rob Enslin Blog: http://enslin.co.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/robenslin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Dave Lane = Egressive Ltd = [EMAIL PROTECTED] = m: +64 21 229 8147 p: +64 3 9633733 = Linux: it just tastes better = nosoftwarepatents http://egressive.com we only use open standards: http://w3.org Effusion Group Founding Member === http://effusiongroup.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] html vs. html
Exactly! But as you know, old conventions die hard! Joe On Jun 20, 2008, at 10:19, Ian Chamberlain 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] *** == 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] ***
Re: [WSG] html vs. html
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] ***
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] ***
Re: [WSG] html vs. html
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] ***
Re: [WSG] html vs. html
Ultimately, if the server is configured right, it shouldn't matter, but standardistas are sticklers for detail./ feel able to reveal the vendor name? Curious Joe On Jun 19 2008, at 18:08, Rob Enslin wrote: Many thanks for all the input. Now for the fun part... go back to the CMS vendor who made the claim and ask for some proof ;-) Have a great day/night. Rob 2008/6/19 Patrick H. Lauke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Quoting Patrick Lauke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Jonathan D'mello To go off on a tangent Patrick, this is getting to be a rather common excuse from some developers. If they don't want to change code, they say it will break W3C standards. Sorry, I just re-read this and realised that I completely got the wrong conversation. I thought for some reason that this was in reply to the "[WSG] Marking Up Poems" discussion, and that it was in defense of not following standards. Crikey... Profuse apologies! I obviously haven't had enough coffee this morning...disregard my passionate reply rant... P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Rob Enslin Blog: http://enslin.co.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/robenslin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.typingthevoid.com www.joiz.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] html vs. html
Many thanks for all the input. Now for the fun part... go back to the CMS vendor who made the claim and ask for some proof ;-) Have a great day/night. Rob 2008/6/19 Patrick H. Lauke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Quoting Patrick Lauke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Jonathan D'mello >>> >> >> To go off on a tangent Patrick, this is getting to be a rather common >>> excuse from some developers. If they don't want to change code, they >>> say it will break W3C standards. >>> >> > Sorry, I just re-read this and realised that I completely got the wrong > conversation. I thought for some reason that this was in reply to the "[WSG] > Marking Up Poems" discussion, and that it was in defense of not following > standards. Crikey... > > Profuse apologies! I obviously haven't had enough coffee this > morning...disregard my passionate reply rant... > > P > -- > Patrick H. Lauke > __ > re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively > [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] > www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk > http://redux.deviantart.com > __ > Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force > http://webstandards.org/ > __ > Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team > http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ > __ > > > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** > > -- Rob Enslin Blog: http://enslin.co.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/robenslin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] html vs. html
Quoting Patrick Lauke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Jonathan D'mello To go off on a tangent Patrick, this is getting to be a rather common excuse from some developers. If they don't want to change code, they say it will break W3C standards. Sorry, I just re-read this and realised that I completely got the wrong conversation. I thought for some reason that this was in reply to the "[WSG] Marking Up Poems" discussion, and that it was in defense of not following standards. Crikey... Profuse apologies! I obviously haven't had enough coffee this morning...disregard my passionate reply rant... P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] html vs. html
Are you sure they're not right? I'd make them prove it Joe On Jun 19, 2008, at 11:11, Jonathan D'mello wrote: To go off on a tangent Patrick, this is getting to be a rather common excuse from some developers. If they don't want to change code, they say it will break W3C standards. On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 12:37 AM, 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... -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** 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] *** == Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] html vs. html
And the other excuse is that is "that everybody use it". Just ask for proves of that (both the standards and the numbers). Weak developers hide under this "false" statements to avoid doing their job. P.S. If they ask for your proves, you only have to show them the W3C pages. They are in html, so somebody are using it. César Páris 2008/6/19 Jonathan D'mello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > To go off on a tangent Patrick, this is getting to be a rather common > excuse from some developers. If they don't want to change code, they > say it will break W3C standards. > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 12:37 AM, 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... > > > > -- > > Patrick H. Lauke > > __ > > re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively > > [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] > > www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk > > http://redux.deviantart.com > > __ > > Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force > > http://webstandards.org/ > > __ > > > > > > *** > > 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] > *** > > *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] html vs. html
> Jonathan D'mello > To go off on a tangent Patrick, this is getting to be a rather common > excuse from some developers. If they don't want to change code, they > say it will break W3C standards. The core tenet of "web standards" is to choose the most semantically/structurally appropriate way to mark content up using official W3C standards. But hey, feel free to just start making up your own markup (, , ) and style it with CSS...visually, it will probably look fine, but don't be surprised if you run into serious interoperability problems and issues like assistive technology not being able to understand what the heck you actually meant with your made-up markup... P Patrick H. Lauke Web Editor Enterprise & Development University of Salford Room 113, Faraday House Salford, Greater Manchester M5 4WT UK T +44 (0) 161 295 4779 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.salford.ac.uk A GREATER MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] html vs. html
To go off on a tangent Patrick, this is getting to be a rather common excuse from some developers. If they don't want to change code, they say it will break W3C standards. On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 12:37 AM, 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... > > -- > Patrick H. Lauke > __ > re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively > [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] > www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk > http://redux.deviantart.com > __ > Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force > http://webstandards.org/ > __ > > > *** > 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] html vs. html
> jody tate > Most of their recommendations > include URI examples that use the .html extension and the > site itself > appears to use .html extensions: > http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/Cover.html. In fact, there's some advice that advocates ditching file extensions altogether for future-proofing http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI and specifically http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI#remove P Patrick H. Lauke Web Editor Enterprise & Development University of Salford Room 113, Faraday House Salford, Greater Manchester M5 4WT UK T +44 (0) 161 295 4779 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.salford.ac.uk A GREATER MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] html vs. html
After much googling around (I was fascinated by this question) and much reading of various W3C documents here and there, I can say with about 97.3% certainty that the W3C has never drafted a recommendation that standardized file extensions. Most of their recommendations include URI examples that use the .html extension and the site itself appears to use .html extensions: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/Cover.html. The real story of why .htm and three letter extensions were ever used is told in a round about way here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filename_extension . Given the history of filename extensions, I can see how someone might think that a three-letter extension is required (and maybe--for some strange reason--the server's settings do require html to be served as .htm and .html files are served differently). Whatever the case, the W3C doesn't recommend .htm as a standard. -- Jody Tate Web Developer - UW Network Systems http://staff.washington.edu/jtate/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] html vs. html
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. -- Scott Elcomb http://www.psema4.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] html vs. html
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... -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] html vs. html
Alternative to serving XHTML pages via Content Negotiation, I associate (via .htaccess) the .htm file extension with HTML & XHTML pages served as content MIME type text/html and the .html file extension for XHTML pages served as content MIME type application/xhtml+xml. James Semantic Web Page Authoring http://jp29.org/ Gregorio Espadas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the same. Ergo, I always prefered .html over .htm > > Gregorio Espadas > http://espadas.com.mx > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Svip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If W3C says so, I cannot see why at all. Who said a file extension > > should be 3 characters long? Microsoft!? Hah, don't make me laugh, > > just because they thought people wouldn't be able to have filenames > > longer than 8 characters and 3 characters for file extensions (known > > as the 8.3 system). People have later assumed that that is the norm. > > But file types like torrents (.torrent) have proven that it doesn't > > have to be the case. > > > > In my opinion, I prefer .html over .htm, cause the technology is > > called HTML, not HTM, huh? > > > > Regards, > > Svip > > > *** > 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] html vs. html
the standard is html On Jun 18, 2008, at 17:31, Ian Chamberlain wrote: The W3C's own site is full of four letter suffixs Rob. not that that means anything. I would doubt what they are saying, but then where I came from CMS and web standards were on different planets. - Original Message - From: Rob Enslin To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 5:22 PM Subject: [WSG] html vs. html Hi peeps, 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) Is this true? Any thoughts? Cheers, Rob -- Rob Enslin Blog: http://enslin.co.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/robenslin *** 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] *** == Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] html vs. html
I think the same. Ergo, I always prefered .html over .htm Gregorio Espadas http://espadas.com.mx On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Svip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If W3C says so, I cannot see why at all. Who said a file extension > should be 3 characters long? Microsoft!? Hah, don't make me laugh, > just because they thought people wouldn't be able to have filenames > longer than 8 characters and 3 characters for file extensions (known > as the 8.3 system). People have later assumed that that is the norm. > But file types like torrents (.torrent) have proven that it doesn't > have to be the case. > > In my opinion, I prefer .html over .htm, cause the technology is > called HTML, not HTM, huh? > > Regards, > Svip *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] html vs. html
If W3C says so, I cannot see why at all. Who said a file extension should be 3 characters long? Microsoft!? Hah, don't make me laugh, just because they thought people wouldn't be able to have filenames longer than 8 characters and 3 characters for file extensions (known as the 8.3 system). People have later assumed that that is the norm. But file types like torrents (.torrent) have proven that it doesn't have to be the case. In my opinion, I prefer .html over .htm, cause the technology is called HTML, not HTM, huh? Regards, Svip 2008/6/18 Rob Enslin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi peeps, > > 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) > > Is this true? Any thoughts? > > Cheers, > > Rob > > -- > Rob Enslin > Blog: http://enslin.co.uk > Twitter: http://twitter.com/robenslin > *** > 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] html vs. html
The W3C's own site is full of four letter suffixs Rob. not that that means anything. I would doubt what they are saying, but then where I came from CMS and web standards were on different planets. - Original Message - From: Rob Enslin To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 5:22 PM Subject: [WSG] html vs. html Hi peeps, 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) Is this true? Any thoughts? Cheers, Rob -- Rob Enslin Blog: http://enslin.co.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/robenslin *** 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] ***
[WSG] html vs. html
Hi peeps, 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) Is this true? Any thoughts? Cheers, Rob -- Rob Enslin Blog: http://enslin.co.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/robenslin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
