htm or html?

Which Extension? htm or html

[nearula]

I have created a new website and I have used the extension .htm on all my pages. I have read in a few places that *.hmtl is better and now the standard.

The reason I used .htm is I thought it was shorter and used one less letter. Also I have read it is more traditional.

Also I have noticed that most websites including google use .html. do they rate .html extensions higher than .htm?

Basically is it worth me changing all my pages to .html extensions?

Cheers
RL

<Sorry, no personal URLs. See TOS [webmasterworld.com]>

[edited by: tedster at 10:44 pm (utc) on Jan. 12, 2005]

[encyclo]

Welcome to WebmasterWorld [webmasterworld.com], nearula. You might want to check out the terms of service [webmasterworld.com] for the forum which does not permit the posting of personal URLs.

To answer your question, Google does not differentiate between file extensions when it comes to ranking, so you can use .htm, .html or whatever you prefer. However, it is best to be consistent: choose one and stick with it for all your pages.

[choster]

Welcome to WebmasterWorld, nearula!

When HTML was first invented, authors on UNIX servers commonly gave files the extension .html. Since MS-DOS could only handle up to three characters in its filename extensions, such files became .htm for Windows users.

There's no "official" extension; neither .html nor .htm is "wrong" though some may argue .html is more correct or traditional and others will argue .htm is just as good and one byte shorter. After all, a URI is just a name, and nowadays plenty of HTML content is delivered from addresses which use .mspx, .php, .jsp, .cfm, and so on. Indeed, one could configure a web server to deliver .gif files as html content, or leave off the extension altogether.

[Tutorialized]

No need to change, nobody cares if it's .htm or .html, including the search engines.

[Reid]

You should note however that the same file with 2 different extensions .htm or .html are actually 2 different files.
Ex. If your text editor automatically places a .htm extension on your file and you try to link to it using a .html you will get a 404 because it is actually a different file.
You could use both extensions to create different files with the same name (different extension) but it would be very confusing.

[Imaster]

I generally always use .html as I find it more complete than only .htm

My reason being HTML stands for "HyperText Markup Language". I don't want to leave "Language" out if I use .htm and so I use .html

That's just my personal preference.

[EBear]

As said before, it doesn't matter. Personally I use .htm but only because I started doing so when some of my clients still had DOS-based machines so if I gave them a disk to view something offline .html would cause problems.

Whichever one you choose, use in uniformly on all web pages and use the other on every non-web page (i.e. a page that does not need posting to the server, or is not part of a web site). For me that list (my .html pages) includes: templates; sample bits of code (such as a form) that I might want to use as the basis for future work; foo pages and pages I post for linking too here (for discussion); my own browser homepage (though on my home machine I use a local copy); a bunch of exercises I've used in teaching; etc.

This convention has served me well over about 9 years and helps enormously when you're at the stage of FTPing a new site.

[lZakl]

Imaster,

I generally always use .html as I find it more complete than only .htm

My reason being HTML stands for "HyperText Markup Language". I don't want to leave "Language" out if I use .htm and so I use .html

That's just my personal preference.

Then again, a “markup” IS technically a language (just one with a set of directions and/or instructions), therefore one could argue that the “l” is technically a redundancy. To use “html” without deviation, solely based on the fact that you want the “language" to be included is a bit naive in my opinion. Being most web surfers don’t even know what HTML stands for anyway. ;0)

BTW, I use .html because that’s what I learned to use. lol

[limbo]

htm, It's shorter & the Dreamweaver default.

[rocknbil]

OK I've never revealed this to anyone because it's one of those silly ways of developing a preference about something that doesn't really matter at all.

We often wear symbols, buttons, and other things to indicate who we are as people by revealing our opinions or preferences on issues. For example, we drive about with yellow ribbon stickers on our cars to indicate our support for our troops. .

.html is a way of saying "I am linux-based" while .htm says "I am windows-based."

I wear .html. :-P

[twist]

This topic must come up about once a week here, but what the hay, it's still fun to talk about.

My 1 cent,

More and more normal non-techie people are starting to buy computers, specially now that places like wallymart have lowered the bar by selling <$500 computers. Pretty soon the web is going to be overflowing with people that have no idea what you are talking about. They are not going to care what extention you use. They are never even going to glance at the address bar. You know who pays attention to the address bar, we do, nobody else gives a damn. Nobody cares that you use big fancy acronyms in your address's. Here's a tip, people hate acronyms. You know what the average person thinks when they see the address bar? There's a bunch of gibberish i'll never understand.

I mean, whats the point, what are people trying to prove? What do people think is going to happen?

web master: I use HTML for my webpages.
averagejoe: No ****! Wow, thats so crazy it just might work.
web master: I even let all my visitors know by adding the acronym in the address bar.
averagejoe: You mean for every page of your website? Thats not possible!
web master: Yes, every address has a dot followed by the acronym HTML.
averagejoe: Man, everybody must know your a true webmaster.
____________________________

I just write address's that are easy for me to read and will stand the test of time by using no extension whatsoever.

If you don't believe me that nobody pays any attention to the address bar, then here is a little test to see if, even you, pay attention to the address bar.

Without going to their websites, name 2 of the following off the top of your head,

1) What extension does the red hat site use?

2) What extention does froogle use?

3) What extention does microsoft use?

4) What extension does w3c use?

[limbo]

.htm says "I am windows-based."

I use a mac ;)

[sonjay]

I develop for both Unix- and Windows-based servers, and I've sort of developed the habit of using .htm for sites that will live on a Windows server, and .html for sites that will live on a Unix server. It makes it easier for me to keep track of which hosting platform the different sites use, thus knowing whether I need to use asp or php for scripting, whether I can use .htaccess, etc.

[rocknbil]

what the hay, it's still fun to talk about.

Precisely, which has been iterated repeatedly in this thread.

They are never even going to glance at the address bar.

. . . which is why we have 4 or 5 customers a month calling up, "I can't get to my website," only to find out they've been trying t get to it via a search engine query instead of using the address bar. :-)

I use a mac ;)

* Which is often characterized by file names such as:
"Main Page" (spaces and no extension)
"this.is.my.main.page" (Why do many Mac users like to do this?)

* I also have a G3, preceding comments are for entertainment purposes only and should not be used for investment or education. Do not hold close to flame. :-P

[MatthewHSE]

I just write address's that are easy for me to read and will stand the test of time by using no extension whatsoever.

I'd love to do that, but so far I've always had more pressing things to look into. So for now I go with .html, as it just seems more complete.

And I DO look at the address bar for many pages I visit! ;)

[mrnoisy]

I go with .html, as it just seems more complete.

I agree, for reasons of aesthetic balance.

Imagine the file extension was a container filled with water (go on, you can do it).

With .htm, the water would flow down from the 'h', over the 'm', and out the right side, spilling all over the tabs.

Whereas when using .html, the water stays within the container, because the 'l' holds it in, creating the balance.