html or htm?

[dougie]

Hi all,

Is it better and more compatible with everyhting to have html or htm as the extension on web page files please?

I'm just about to start a web site, that will, when it's finished, have about 400 pages, so I would like to get it straight from the start.

It probably works ok both ways, but is one better than the other?

[BlobFisk]

According to Google:

.html: 504,000,000
.htm: 280,000,000

;)

[TGecho]

the file extension doesn't matter at all. In fact I think you could use .webpage if you set up the server properly. I use htm if I use an extension at all. I think it looks a bit cleaner and it's one less character.

[korkus2000]

It is preference as said above. I use htm just because it is less characters, and yes I am just that lazy. They don't make any difference today. MS use to only handle 3 letter extensions so that is where the htm came from.

[BlobFisk]

Out of habit I use .html, but as alredy said - it make no difference.

[MatthewHSE]

I use HTML because I've found that many people - those who even know webpages have extensions, that is - automatically think "html" and find .htm harder to remember.

[Essex_boy]

HTM suffix came about due to the fact that old computers could only display a 3 letter file suffix.

I would think now that to have a computer that could only understand the three letter suffix means your machine must be at least 10 years old if not older.

[grahamstewart]

I always use *.html because thats what it was always supposed to be. :)

It was developers running FrontPage and the ilk running on old Windows boxes that could only handle 8.3 filenames that caused *.htm to be born.

But either will work perfectly well (even on old Windows boxes) in fact you could call your page "mypage.dougiesownextension" and it would still work perfectly well (in theory).

[tit4tat]

I was taught in 1996 to use HTML for "index" pages (as it was the standard) and HTM for all subsequent pages. I have followed that rule ever since. I have noticed most older webmasters doing the same.

Although functionality is in no way altered by using one or the other, it simply follows traditional rules.

[albert]

Doesn't matter what you choose.

But by that difference you may understand how old a webmaster of another site is ;)

[robert adams]

It's kinda like the old story about why did mom cut the ham in half and cook it in two pans. because her mom did it that way, her mom did it because her mom did it that way, her mom did it because her pan was too small.

either one will work but most pages around the world are .html

luck,
robert

[sidyadav]

I use .HTML because Google uses it and thats what its supposed to be.

For some strange reason, I find it a bit "un-professional" seeing people use .HTM, and of course, thats just me :)

Sid

[Reflection]

I was taught in 1996 to use HTML for "index" pages (as it was the standard) and HTM for all subsequent pages. I have followed that rule ever since. I have noticed most older webmasters doing the same.

Thats interesesting, goes against my thinking :). I think the most important thing is too choose one and stick with it. Otherwise you could end up having 2 pages that are the same, you forget(as all webmasters do ;)) there are 2 pages and you end up only updating one. Later you discover there is page.htm that people are visiting only you havent updated it in the last year ;)

[robert adams]

there would be no reason to have duplicate pages, one with .htm and one with .html.

either one will work in any browser but they are not the same. page.htm and page.html are two different pages. If you mean htm don't put in html because it won't come up.

robert

[WeirdoPL]

HTM suffix came about due to the fact that old computers could only display a 3 letter file suffix.

I think it was just about DOS (Oh YEAH! DOS ROCKS! :D).

I use htm cause I'm a DOS child (my 386 and 286 are still running well).
Someone said it looks unproffesional to him... Well... In that case I'll probably never stop using htm ;) .

[bill]

I've noticed a lot of people using blog software are modifying their archive files to use cruft-free URLs. Essentially this means your page's URL will look something like this:

http: //domain.com/archive/2004/jan/16/

There is no filename or extension at all. The thinking behind this is that regardless of any future or existing web technology the URL will remain the same. Thus whether you're using ASP, PHP, HTML, SHTML or something else you can control this behind the scenes and never have to change your URL at all. I think they may be on to something here.

[robert adams]

cruft-free URLs

what does this mean? the example you posted would just point to a page named index.html wouldn't it?

robert

[pete_m]

the example you posted would just point to a page named index.html wouldn't it?

It may be served by a file named index.html, but it probably wouldn't.

There are two reasons for this:
1 - naming the default directory file as "index.html" is just a convention. When the browser asks for a directory (rather than a file) the webserver sends back the default directory file. This is commonly index.htm(l), but could be default.asp, index.php, fish-and-chips.jsp, or anything-you-like-at.all
2 - to complicate matters even further, the URL may not even correspond to the actual directory structure. Tools like mod_rewrite and ISAPI_Rewrite allow the entire website and its complicated directory structure to be served from only one dynamic page (if that's what you wanted)

[robert adams]

my point is that whatever you set your server to consider the "index" file, that is what has to be done.
if the server says that yoyo.html is the default, then the page named yoyo.html is what will display if you dont type in anything but the directory.
Any other page name that you access will show up in the address bar.

example:
your server is set to display yoyo.html as default;

yourdomain.com
/folder
yoyo.html
page2.html

type in yourdomain.com/folder, your browser displays yoyo.html
your address bar displays yourdomain.com/folder

type in yourdomain.com/folder/page2.html, your browser displays page2.html
your address bar displays yourdomain.com/folder/page2.html

I think this is correct,
robert

[piskie]

I think it does not matter until you start using cgi/perl script etc off the shelf and customising variables.

A lot of terms in some free scripts will be html or htm specific and as such very unforgiving.

[robert adams]

piskie, if I understan what you are saying, I agree. A point I made in an earlier post is that htm and html are completely different. If you have a script that points to whatever.html and your file is named whatever.htm, it won't work because it is asking for a file that doesn't exist.

luck,
robert

[twist]

I first spelled it ".html" then later ".htm" now I just spell it ".php" :)

[rezz7]

I've always used html. Most web developers/designers use html. For me, it looks kinda weird using just htm. Thats just me!

[mbauser2]

The gospel according to TimBL:

[w3.org...]

Scroll down to the section entitled "What to leave out" (and read the footnote, too) to understand what the bloggers are trying to do. (Then remember, getting technical advice from bloggers is like a playing a game of "post office" -- what you hear is seldom the original message.)

[jamesa]

Yes, it doesn't matter. I like .html. It just has a certain je ne sais quoi for me. :)

[TryAgain]

It doesn't matter because servers are set up to recognize both.

The right thing to use is html because that's what it is supposed to be.

(It's a html protocol we're using btw, not htm.)

The same for the www prefix. I wish everybody would stop using it as it is totally superfluous.

(Although it makes an url more recognizible as just that.)

[bill]

cruft-free URLs

There are a few ways people are using this...one way is to generate a pseudo folder so that the default page will show. Another way I've seen people do this is to modify their .htaccess files to allow the display of file names without any extension at all. So, you could have files named whatever you wanted.

The purpose of this again is to future-proof your URLs by removing unnecessary information in the address string.

[mbauser2]

(It's a html protocol we're using btw, not htm.)

HTML is a format, not a protocol. Now, HTTP -- there's a protocol.

The same for the www prefix. I wish everybody would stop using it as it is totally superfluous.

Don't start that again.

[TryAgain]

HTML is a format, not a protocol. Now, HTTP -- there's a protocol.

I guess you are right. Whatever. You get the picture.

Don't start that again.

What are you talking about?
Anyway, don't get me started...

[4serendipity]

just to throw my 2 cnets in:

I always use .html and always include www.

I've thought about switching to .htm and loosing www. to save the extra byte or three here and there, but it just doesn't seem right to me.

I never thought that I'd ever be this dogmatic :)