.html vs. .htm

RHolm

Hey,

I've been asked this question twice today and decided i'd get some clarity on it. What is the difference between .htm and .html

My answer was that they wanted to keep it the same as all other file extentions (.exe, .mp3, .bmp, .php, etc.)

I could be wrong, so i decided i'd come and ask anyway, just to be sure.

Ciao

Ryan

drew010

there's no difference besides the extra letter. browsers will understand both extensions and webservers will send both as html documents.
since you are actually writing html markup, it is probably more sensical to use .html

Tekime

I stick to .html. I think the .htm extension is just a remnant of the DOS/8.3 file naming era .

Mordecai

As stated above, no difference (sans the one letter). The .htm is, as you guessed, just to keep it to the 'standard' three-character file extension.

Weedpacket

Cf: ".jpeg" vs. ".jpg".

Too many abbreviations?
It's "JFIF", anyway...

goldbug

Who cares what the extension is. As long as the mapped MIME type matches the data.. it's all good. 😃

Merve

It really doesn't matter. You can even use .xhtml if you are coding in XHTML. Heck, if I wanted to, I guess I could make .merve files.

Mordecai

Originally posted by Merve
Heck, if I wanted to, I guess I could make .merve files.

Yep, and, as Goldbug stated, as long as the MIMEtype matches, it'll work. If you so desire to output this automatically in Apache:
AddType text/html .merve

onion2k

Two of my clients servers parse .html as PHP. Its handy as users have no idea that they've gone between static and dynamic pages.

Weedpacket

http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI

I was doing some work for one outfit and they contracted out some web site development work to another company. It came back as a template-driven ASP. They got all flustered and panicky because it meant all those links in search engines to their site would be broken because they all ended with ".html" instead of ".asp". They insisted on having the entire site converted to static HTML (basically by running every single possible page and dumping the output) so that they could keep the .html extension and thus their search engine placement.

I don't want to talk about what I was doing during all this....

piersk

Originally posted by Weedpacket
I don't want to talk about what I was doing during all this....

Watchin the game, having a bud?

Tekime

Originally posted by Weedpacket
I was doing some work for one outfit and they contracted out some web site development work to another company. It came back as a template-driven ASP. They got all flustered and panicky because it meant all those links in search engines to their site would be broken because they all ended with ".html" instead of ".asp". They insisted on having the entire site converted to static HTML ...

Isn't that what a 301 is for?

I don't want to talk about what I was doing during all this....

Screaming in frustration, I would assume.

D_tunisia

If you wanted to go Google about it you would be saving bandwidth if you changed all your links .htm.

Wonder how much you would save removing the "l" from each page?!