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]
*******************************************************************
