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 (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 - neither.

2008-07-03 Thread AGerasimchuk
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: 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,
 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] html vs. html

2008-06-22 Thread John Horner
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: 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: [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] 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 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

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 .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

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 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

2008-06-20 Thread Ian Chamberlain
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]
***



Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-20 Thread Joseph Ortenzi

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: 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]
***



==
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 - 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 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

2008-06-20 Thread Rob Enslin

 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: 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]
 ***


 ==
 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

2008-06-20 Thread Joseph Ortenzi

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: 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]
***


==
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 - 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 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

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, 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

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
--
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

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 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

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 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

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

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

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 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

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 mark content up using official W3C 
standards. But hey, feel free to just start making up your own markup 
(stanza/stanza, line/line, word/word) 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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]
***


[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 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]
***

Re: [WSG] html vs. html

2008-06-18 Thread Ian Chamberlain
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]
***


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).  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

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 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

2008-06-18 Thread Joseph Ortenzi

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

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 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

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 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]
***