Re: [WSG] html vs. html - neither.

2008-07-03 Thread Joe Ortenzi
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

Re: [WSG] html vs. html - neither.

2008-07-03 Thread AGerasimchuk
. 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

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

2008-06-22 Thread Matijs
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,

RE: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-22 Thread John Horner
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

Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-21 Thread Korny Sietsma
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

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:

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

Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-20 Thread Joe Ortenzi
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

Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-20 Thread Martin Kliehm
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

Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-20 Thread Joseph Ortenzi
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

Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-20 Thread Ian Chamberlain
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

Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-20 Thread Joseph Ortenzi
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

Re: [WSG] html vs. html - neither.

2008-06-20 Thread Dave Lane
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

Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-20 Thread Rob Enslin
] 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

Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-20 Thread Joseph Ortenzi
- 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

Re: [WSG] html vs. html - neither.

2008-06-20 Thread Rob Enslin
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

Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-20 Thread Alastair Campbell
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,

Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-20 Thread James Pickering
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 --

Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-20 Thread James Pickering
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

Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-19 Thread jody tate
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

RE: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-19 Thread Patrick Lauke
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

Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-19 Thread 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. On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 12:37 AM, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rob Enslin wrote: I recently started noticing

RE: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-19 Thread Patrick Lauke
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

Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-19 Thread César Páris
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

Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-19 Thread Joseph Ortenzi
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

RE: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-19 Thread Patrick H. Lauke
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

Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-19 Thread Rob Enslin
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

[WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-18 Thread Rob Enslin
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

Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-18 Thread Ian Chamberlain
: 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

Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-18 Thread Svip
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).

Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-18 Thread Gregorio Espadas
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

Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-18 Thread Joseph Ortenzi
. - 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

Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-18 Thread James Pickering
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

Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-18 Thread Patrick H. Lauke
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