I remember this thread from another forum, so here is a fairly good description.
Quote:
Back when people where still connecting to the internet using windows 3.x, and DOS 5/6 it was important to make sure that your file names followed the DOS 8.3 naming convention
Where the first part of a file name could be no more than 8 characters long, followed by a . then followed by the extension that could be no longer than 3 characters long.
example:
index.htm
would be valid, but
myindexpage.htm
or
myindex.html
Would be invalid file names under the dos file system.
Now that almost everyone connects to the internet with an OS that can interpret larger file names, it is no longer important to follow that standard, and you are free to use either .html or .htm as you please.
I'd forgotten the 8.3 syntax! If I want my site to be usable even for people using old machines, possibly with 3.1, should I stick to the 8.3 convention?
I doubt that there would be that many people still on 3.1. The restrictions on software and such being too much of a reason to update.
The biggest development curse isn't older machines as such, it is the browser wars that get us. Personally I haven't heard of any problems with our sites vis-a-vis O.S problems.
companies like Compaq and Microsoft do not worry about it. The fact is with most sites utilising server side content delivery with 3 letter extensions, ie asp, and the amount of traffic these sites see, if they dont have a problem then neither should I.
Anyone got another take on this?
Chad Simper posted this at 17:16 — 26th March 2001.
1) I just checked TWF's site stats for the month of March and currently, it has over 7,000,000 file requests. Of those, 44 came from a Windows 3.1 machine! I was actually surprised it was that high. I would bet it was the same individiual. At this point, I really can't believe anyone could still be using 3.1.
2) Also note that several years ago, hosts only allowed one or the other extension. Servers were setup to recognize either index.htm or index.html as the main homepage, but not both (don't ask me why but I have used servers like this). This has all but disappeared now though.
Now, I could see no reason for using one over the other... Maybe use .htm because it's shorter but that's really the only advantage I can...
Want to join the discussion? Create an account or log in if you already have one. Joining is fast, free and painless! We’ll even whisk you back here when you’ve finished.
detox posted this at 13:44 — 26th March 2001.
They have: 571 posts
Joined: Feb 2001
I remember this thread from another forum, so here is a fairly good description.
Now that almost everyone connects to the internet with an OS that can interpret larger file names, it is no longer important to follow that standard, and you are free to use either .html or .htm as you please.
dreuby posted this at 14:31 — 26th March 2001.
They have: 42 posts
Joined: Sep 2000
I'd forgotten the 8.3 syntax! If I want my site to be usable even for people using old machines, possibly with 3.1, should I stick to the 8.3 convention?
D Reuby
detox posted this at 15:17 — 26th March 2001.
They have: 571 posts
Joined: Feb 2001
I doubt that there would be that many people still on 3.1. The restrictions on software and such being too much of a reason to update.
The biggest development curse isn't older machines as such, it is the browser wars that get us. Personally I haven't heard of any problems with our sites vis-a-vis O.S problems.
companies like Compaq and Microsoft do not worry about it. The fact is with most sites utilising server side content delivery with 3 letter extensions, ie asp, and the amount of traffic these sites see, if they dont have a problem then neither should I.
Anyone got another take on this?
Chad Simper posted this at 17:16 — 26th March 2001.
He has: 424 posts
Joined: Mar 1999
I wanted to post two points about this:
1) I just checked TWF's site stats for the month of March and currently, it has over 7,000,000 file requests. Of those, 44 came from a Windows 3.1 machine! I was actually surprised it was that high. I would bet it was the same individiual. At this point, I really can't believe anyone could still be using 3.1.
2) Also note that several years ago, hosts only allowed one or the other extension. Servers were setup to recognize either index.htm or index.html as the main homepage, but not both (don't ask me why but I have used servers like this). This has all but disappeared now though.
Now, I could see no reason for using one over the other... Maybe use .htm because it's shorter but that's really the only advantage I can...
Jaiem posted this at 13:49 — 28th March 2001.
They have: 1,191 posts
Joined: Apr 1999
Some site building software like FrontPage still default to .htm as the extension. Guess they feel they need to be backwards compatible.
I agree. 99.999% of people can handle .html as an extension. Don't worry over it.
Mark Hensler posted this at 19:28 — 28th March 2001.
He has: 4,048 posts
Joined: Aug 2000
If you were a die hard 8.3 person... how would you handle a .shtml file?
Grandmaster posted this at 20:53 — 28th March 2001.
They have: 677 posts
Joined: Mar 1999
You cant : )
Want to join the discussion? Create an account or log in if you already have one. Joining is fast, free and painless! We’ll even whisk you back here when you’ve finished.