html VS htm

[einaryun]

What's the difference between html and htm?

[Sinner_G]

AFAIK, there is not really a difference, htm just comes from the time when file extensions could only be 3 letters.

[elgumbo]

.htm is sexier ;)

[Imaster]

I personally prefer .html :)

[Monus]

Long... long... long time ago (dos time) some browsers could not display .html files. For to avoid that problem they used the .htm file extension.

Thats all.

[einaryun]

Thanks all,Our static website files all use .htm extensions.Now I think it's better. :)

[marcusbjorke]

It also depends on the configuration of your webserver. I remember the first site i put up, the index.html file had to be named with html otherwise you would not get anything if you just typed in the domainname i.e www.mydomain.com/mysite/

Anayway it shouldn't be a problem anymore, since webservers mostly works with both now. If you see what W3C.org uses it is html. I prefer html since i first had a problem with htm.

[Imaster]

I guess it also depends on your preference. FYI, Google and many other sites use .html

[google.com...]

[drbrain]

.htm exists because FAT16 is a crappy filesystem.

.html or .htm or anything else (.pl, .cgi, .foo) could be rendered as HTML if the server sends it as text/html.

Since the first use of html was on *nix machines that could handle arbitrarily sized filenames, .html was the extension of choice.

[TGecho]

I prefer .php ;)
When doing static pages, I use .htm just because it's shorter. There aren't really any compelling reasons one way or another.

[korkus2000]

htm here like said before it is shorter.

[sun818]

Imagine how much bandwidth and diskspace we would save collectively if every file that was .html was replaced with .htm :) Smaller web pages, smaller web logs, faster downloads... ;)

[g1smd]

The .html file extension was the first one, and was used on Unix and other systems. Later, when MS-DOS and Windows 3.11 was used, the FAT 16 filename limitations meant that people uploading webpages were restricted to using the 8.3 notation. However, most people did not realise that once the file had been sent by FTP from the computer to the webserver that it could be renamed from .htm to .html instead. As they didn't know then few people actually did it. The web browser could use any filename irrespective of the actual operating system in use on the computer. However, saving files from the web would mean that longer filenames would be truncated to 8.3 format. Winodws 95, with long-filename support fixed all those problems.

[jatar_k]

I use

.html == php parsed
.htm == static html

[RobinC]

jatar_k: *really* nice idea, I've set up .html for php too, but never changed .htm from being static - somehow that never occured to me... (goes off to do some playing around with it) ;-)

[einaryun]

.html == php parsed
.htm == static html

Good idea,Can you give some particular description for ".html==php parsed"? thanks!

[DrDoc]

bandwidth and diskspace we would save collectively

So, why not just use .h ;)

[jatar_k]

Can you give some particular description

sure what do you want to know?

I set all of my pages with .html extension to be php. It helps with speed, why turn on the parser for a page if there is no php on the page at all. To be perfectly honest, I don't often use .htm. Very few of my pages don't have php in them.

DrDoc, why use an extension at all? ;)