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