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: [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 - 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]
***