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 <- 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 <- 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] ***
