I've been working on my website revamp. The entire old site will soon be gone and replaced with a new, fully integrated site with all the content strung together in a far better package (and much better looking).

For the static pages, I am wonder which way to go though.

It really doesn't matter since both are fully function in all current browsers and both work fine with my web space provider.

But what will seem more friendly to people the long term? Most sites use dynamic pages so there are no extensions, but I'll be utilizing static pages to ensure the pages display faster during peak usage times. The static pages will be regenerated automatically when people comment, etc. as opposed to being generated on the fly every time like PHP.

Silly question, kinda, but it is important. Once I publish my new website, I'm pretty much stick with whichever direction I've chosen because other sites will link to mine (which already do) and I know the webmasters don't want to keep changing their links to my stuff. Also, if I'm fortunate enough to pick up links from social networking sites, well, I don't want them breaking over time either.

I've got a mish-mash of HTM and HTML links currently there (on old site). I should go one way or the other.

Dear TheReelTodd,

I am happy to inform you that our technical support service is available 24 hours a day. Please consider clicking one of the promotional advertisements displayed on our site to show your support.

Now, to address your question. I once read long, long ago... in a system far far away... that .html was the safer route to go between the two options. Like maybe there were early versions of IE or Netscape something that liked .html better. (Wow, haven't seen Netscape for a while. I think I'll Google search it to see what it's up to.)

As such, I author all my web pages with .html. Please keep in mind that the educational information I provide here is like 5 or 10 years old, so I trust someone else with a little more updated web know-how will answer your question or confirm my knowledge here soon.

Take care,

-Traahn
Tron-Sector Technical Support Staff for the Non-Tecnically Inclined (j/k)

Dear KiaPurity,

I am happy to inform you that our technical support service is available 24 hours a day. Please consider clicking one of the promotional advertisements displayed on our site to show your support.

Now, to address your question. The difference between the two is one letter.

Take care,

-Traahn
Tron-Sector Technical Support Staff for the Non-Tecnically Inclined (j/k)

Traahn Wroteear TheReelTodd, Thank you for contacting Tron-Sector.com technical support. This is an automated response from the Tron-Sector system. Please do not reply to this post as it will go unanswered. A representative will be with you shortly with an answer to your inquiry. E-mail interactions may be recorded for quality assurance. Thank you for using Tron-Sector.com Sincerely, Tron-Sector

LMAO!

Oh man - that was great!

Thanks, Traahn.

As you indicated, I had read that html was the more accepted or compatible web format, but I also read that it really doesn't matter anymore since all current (in-use) web servers and browsers can go either way without problems.

My under-construction site is currently set to use the html file extension. Although it really didn't matter, I figured I'd get some input on the subject before I made it live and basically set it in stone.

I'll probably stick with .html because... well, I'm not sure why. Unless someone tells me something horrible will happen if I do, like the world will run out of mustard or Tom Selleck's mustache from the 80's will attack the city of New.

KiaPurity Wrote:whut? Though, what is the difference between htm and html? O_o

Functionally, nothing really. Back in the day, some web servers were not capable of using 4-letter file extensions so they used ".htm" instead of ".html", but that's not the case now. I mean, that's it in a nutshell. I was just wondering if there was a preferred web extension for people. In the end, I don't think anyone cares, so long as things load up.


order abortion pill morning after pill price where to buy abortion pill

laphtiya Wrote:Code it in XHTML and save as an html file. That way it will pritty much work on any web browser application. As a web designer myself I know where your comming from. From what I remember XHTML is a mix of HTM and HTML anyway lol

Code it in... XHTML?

Oh man - I'm SOOO not with the latest in web coding techniques! That's probably why it's been taking me so damn long just to revamp my website. I don't exactly know how to do what I'm trying to do. I've almost got no business trying to do web design, but then again, I've got no one to do it for me, so oh well.

I'm using a CMS, so I don't really need to do a whole lot of raw coding. It allows for dynamic web pages or static, or a mix. I opted for the static since the pages will load faster. That's where the whole web page suffix thing came in to play.

XHTML is basically HTML in lower case LOL! You think I am kidding? There are one or two little changes but nothing drastic.

htm and html?

Surely with so many older people on this forum, and I know just about everyone here is technically astute, some must remember the good old days of 8+3 filenames???



Anyway, best as I can work out, the only main difference is whether or not the webserver recognizes both equally as HTML when index.htm or index.html is not specified...

And then, work out which is accepts *first* if both are equally available in the directory...

And choose the one that it chooses first or maintain consistency to avoid problems.

Then you don't end up with accidents like multiple revisions of webpages on websites and the like.

CAPS/non-caps is important too.

Consistency can be important. A week ago a friend called me because his website wasn't working. I asked him index.htm or .html... He said .htm so I suggested renaming it to HTML as all he said visitors got was a directory listing.

So I got home and had a look. He had Index.html - With a capitol I. I suggested he rename it lowercase and it all worked. Seemed that it all worked with another provider but he had just migrated his stuff.

Simple version - Choose whatever is most common... Lowest Common Denominator is always a good choice.

I'd guess html.

David1

I quote W3Schools:

W3Schools Wrote:When you save an HTML file, you can use either the .htm or the .html extension. We have used .htm in our examples. It might be a bad habit inherited from the past when some of the commonly used software only allowed three letter extensions. With newer software we think it will be perfectly safe to use .html.

I've always used *.html, as it seemed more logical to use the full name of the programming language instead of just an abbreviation.

IMO, too much stuff is abbreviated anymore.