Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [NH] Dumb question time again

Expand Messages
  • Bill Scott
    Hi Lloyd: It is an interactive programing language for cgi scripts by microscoft ... its popular equivalent is Perl. change sugject .... does anyone know what
    Message 1 of 15 , Jan 4, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Lloyd:
      It is an interactive programing language for cgi scripts by microscoft ... its popular equivalent is Perl.

      change sugject ....

      does anyone know what is invovled in upgrading windows ME to windows 2000 /

      Bill Scott


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jim Beidle
      Those are web pages created for use with Microsoft s Active Server technology. They contain a special server-side script language that works under Internet
      Message 2 of 15 , Jan 4, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Those are web pages created for use with Microsoft's Active Server
        technology. They contain a special server-side script language that works
        under Internet Information Server (IIS) to automate and customize web pages
        for the user. It also makes getting to data in Microsoft type data bases.

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Lloyd [mailto:lloyd2@...]
        Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 7:20 AM
        To: ntb-html@egroups.com
        Subject: [NH] Dumb question time again


        Hi All,

        As I wander around the internet, I see file extensions of .asp

        What are these?

        Lloyd
      • Jim Beidle
        Jody, Are there ASP clips available? I hadn t noticed, yet. I ve been meaning to learn this stuff for about the past year. BTW, all, I meant to say that ASP
        Message 3 of 15 , Jan 4, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Jody,

          Are there ASP clips available? I hadn't noticed, yet. I've been meaning to
          learn this stuff for about the past year.

          BTW, all, I meant to say that ASP makes getting info from MS-typ databases
          easier than CGI or client side stuff. Or so the "advertising" says.. . . ;-)

          Jim

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Jody [mailto:av1611@...]
          Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 7:38 AM
          To: ntb-html@egroups.com
          Subject: Re: [NH] Dumb question time again


          Hi Lloyd,

          >As I wander around the internet, I see file extensions of .asp
          >
          >What are these?

          See Help | NoteTab's Glossary for a quick short answer. :)


          Happy HTML'n!
          Jody

          http://www.notetab.net

          The NoteTab and Html List...
          mailto:Ntb-html-Subscribe@...
          mailto:Ntb-html-UnSubscribe@...
        • Bill Scott
          Hi Lloyd: .htm is easier to type than .html both work da same .... Bill Scott [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Message 4 of 15 , Jan 4, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Lloyd:

            .htm is easier to type than .html both work da same ....

            Bill Scott


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Jim Beidle
            Ah! But .html is mainly for Unix servers, some of which absolutely require that extension (ask me how I know). .htm is dos/windows in the main. .htm and .html
            Message 5 of 15 , Jan 4, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Ah! But .html is mainly for Unix servers, some of which absolutely require
              that extension (ask me how I know). .htm is dos/windows in the main. .htm
              and .html both work on Windows NT/IIS web servers, which are in the
              majority, luckily for us.

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Bill Scott [mailto:bscott@...]
              Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 9:44 AM
              To: ntb-html@egroups.com
              Subject: Re: [NH] Dumb question time again


              Hi Lloyd:

              .htm is easier to type than .html both work da same ....

              Bill Scott


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Bill Scott
              Ah! But .html is mainly for Unix servers, (ask me how I know). Hi Jim: I have .htm files on unix apache servers and the files are working ... *||:^) ??????
              Message 6 of 15 , Jan 4, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Ah! But .html is mainly for Unix servers,
                (ask me how I know).
                Hi Jim:
                I have .htm files on unix apache servers and the files are working ... *||:^) ??????

                Bill




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Jody
                Hi Jim, ... That is good to know. Perhaps UNIX will come around someday. I knew UNIX was case sensitive, but not about the .html, else I would not have
                Message 7 of 15 , Jan 4, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Jim,

                  >Ah! But .html is mainly for Unix servers, some of which
                  >absolutely require that extension (ask me how I know). .htm is
                  >dos/windows in the main. .htm and .html both work on Windows
                  >NT/IIS web servers, which are in the majority, luckily for us.

                  That is good to know. Perhaps UNIX will come around someday. I
                  knew UNIX was case sensitive, but not about the .html, else I
                  would not have recently redo my whole NoteTab site to .htm OH
                  well, not changing it back now. :) I just thought that .htm was
                  less to type when doing manual and it made more sense to me
                  because most the rest of HTML files are three letter extensions,
                  at least the ones I use.

                  Thanks!
                  Jody

                  Clean-Funnies: click and send...
                  mailto:c-f@...?subject=Subscribe
                • Jim Beidle
                  Cool! Now I know! I knew that some Unix web servers accepted the .htm extension, I just didn t know for sure which ones. Thanks for adding to my knowledge
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jan 4, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Cool! Now I know! I knew that some Unix web servers accepted the .htm
                    extension, I just didn't know for sure which ones. Thanks for adding to my
                    knowledge Bill.

                    Jim

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Bill Scott [mailto:bscott@...]
                    Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:16 AM
                    To: ntb-html@egroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [NH] Dumb question time again


                    Ah! But .html is mainly for Unix servers,
                    (ask me how I know).
                    Hi Jim:
                    I have .htm files on unix apache servers and the files are working ...
                    *||:^) ??????

                    Bill




                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Wayland_B_Fowler@Raytheon.com
                    ... extension, I just didn t know for sure which ones. Thanks for adding to my knowledge Bill. Actually the use of .htm had to do with Win3.x. Since Win3.x
                    Message 9 of 15 , Jan 4, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      >Cool! Now I know! I knew that some Unix web servers accepted the .htm
                      extension, I just didn't know for sure which ones. Thanks for adding to my
                      knowledge Bill.


                      Actually the use of ".htm" had to do with Win3.x. Since Win3.x was/is not
                      a true operating system, it rode piggyback on DOS. And, since DOS only
                      allowed three character extensions it was necessary for HTML browsers to
                      recognize both ".htm" and ".html". Unix, itself, does not care about the
                      extension.

                      Regards,

                      Wayland Fowler
                      Software Engineer (and all around nice guy!)
                      (281) 280-4446
                    • Don Passenger
                      Usually the server is set to default to a particular file in each directory, and absent the existance of that file will display the file and directory
                      Message 10 of 15 , Jan 4, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Usually the server is set to default to a particular file in each directory,
                        and absent the existance of that file will display the file and directory
                        structure.

                        On many servers, the default file that is required is index.html or
                        default.html or home.html. Often they will not read index.htm, etc., as the
                        default file to display and will instead show the directory/file structure.

                        All servers I have ever worked on will take .htm or .shtml or .html or
                        xhtml files and display them fine, but they may not permit those as the
                        default file. Some now allow index.htm or index.shtml to be the default
                        file, but historically it was only index.html.

                        ---
                        Don Passenger
                        Personal Page: http://www.iserv.net/~dpasseng
                        Court Page: http://www.iserv.net/~dpasseng/grdc
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: <Wayland_B_Fowler@...>
                        To: <ntb-html@egroups.com>
                        Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 3:19 PM
                        Subject: RE: [NH] Dumb question time again


                        > >Cool! Now I know! I knew that some Unix web servers accepted the .htm
                        > extension, I just didn't know for sure which ones. Thanks for adding to my
                        > knowledge Bill.
                        >
                        >
                        > Actually the use of ".htm" had to do with Win3.x. Since Win3.x was/is not
                        > a true operating system, it rode piggyback on DOS. And, since DOS only
                        > allowed three character extensions it was necessary for HTML browsers to
                        > recognize both ".htm" and ".html". Unix, itself, does not care about the
                        > extension.
                        >
                        > Regards,
                        >
                        > Wayland Fowler
                        > Software Engineer (and all around nice guy!)
                        > (281) 280-4446
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • Jim Beidle
                        So, if I understand correctly Wayland, the limitations were because of web servers running on DOS or older windows (e.g., NT 3.51) or some other OS. Or
                        Message 11 of 15 , Jan 4, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          So, if I understand correctly Wayland, the limitations were because of web
                          servers running on DOS or older windows (e.g., NT 3.51) or some other OS. Or
                          software ported to Unix from those platforms? In other words, why do some
                          web servers get cranky about the extensions and others don't, when they're
                          running on Unix?

                          Jim

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Wayland_B_Fowler@...
                          [mailto:Wayland_B_Fowler@...]
                          Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:20 PM
                          To: ntb-html@egroups.com
                          Subject: RE: [NH] Dumb question time again


                          >Cool! Now I know! I knew that some Unix web servers accepted the .htm
                          extension, I just didn't know for sure which ones. Thanks for adding to my
                          knowledge Bill.


                          Actually the use of ".htm" had to do with Win3.x. Since Win3.x was/is not
                          a true operating system, it rode piggyback on DOS. And, since DOS only
                          allowed three character extensions it was necessary for HTML browsers to
                          recognize both ".htm" and ".html". Unix, itself, does not care about the
                          extension.

                          Regards,

                          Wayland Fowler
                          Software Engineer (and all around nice guy!)
                          (281) 280-4446
                        • Larry Hamilton
                          Jody, et al, From what I understand, the web server (in most cases Apache), has a configuration file (sort of like an .ini) that determines what extensions it
                          Message 12 of 15 , Jan 4, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Jody, et al,

                            From what I understand, the web server (in most cases Apache), has a
                            configuration file (sort of like an .ini) that determines what extensions
                            it will accept (htm/html or index.htm*/default.htm* as the default page on
                            a web site). The same is true of PHP, which is a server-side script
                            language, similar in purpose to ASP. With PHP, you can edit its
                            configuration file to use whatever extension you desire, instead of the
                            .php default. So if you really wanted to, you could use you name, or
                            organizations initials, etc. Of course, you have to have access to the
                            configuration files on your web host's server to do this, most do not allow
                            this, due to the chaos it could cause.

                            I have Apache, and PHP on my PC so I can test scripts before I upload them.
                            Both are free downloads from their respective homepages:

                            apache.org and php.org (I think, a search on Google - www.google.com will
                            tell for sure!)

                            At 01:30 PM 01/04/2001 -0600, you wrote:
                            >That is good to know. Perhaps UNIX will come around someday. I
                            >knew UNIX was case sensitive, but not about the .html, else I
                            >would not have recently redo my whole NoteTab site to .htm OH
                            >well, not changing it back now. :) I just thought that .htm was
                            >less to type when doing manual and it made more sense to me
                            >because most the rest of HTML files are three letter extensions,
                            >at least the ones I use.

                            Larry Hamilton, Jr.
                            lm_hamilton@...
                            http://notlimah.tripod.com/
                            Hamilton National Genealogical Society, Inc.
                            http://www.hamiltongensociety.org/
                          • Wayland_B_Fowler@Raytheon.com
                            Jim wrote: So, if I understand correctly Wayland, the limitations were because of web servers running on DOS or older windows (e.g., NT 3.51) or some other OS.
                            Message 13 of 15 , Jan 4, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Jim wrote:
                              So, if I understand correctly Wayland, the limitations were because of web
                              servers running on DOS or older windows (e.g., NT 3.51) or some other OS.
                              Or
                              software ported to Unix from those platforms? In other words, why do some
                              web servers get cranky about the extensions and others don't, when they're
                              running on Unix?

                              Jim,
                              I wish I could say I was a real expert on this, but that would be
                              stretching things, more than just a little. With regard to how these OSs
                              deal with files, DOS and Win3.x (and I think 95, 98) are extension
                              dependent whereas Unix is attribute dependent. That is, unlike Unix, DOS
                              (and its Windows pals) do not know what to do with most files without its
                              extension. Same goes for its server software, for example Apache. On
                              newer versions of Windows the mime settings can be set to recognize either
                              .htm or .html (or if someone is daring enough, any other extension).
                              Chances are that, on the newer versions, it already defaults to both. The
                              older Windows versions (3.x) would not allow more than the three character
                              extension. As far as software ported to unix is concerned, most of its
                              servers should be able to handle either extension, if it doesn't then
                              perhaps the mime settings (or perhaps a .ini file) for the server software
                              should be set to handle both. I think this is correct, if it is not quite
                              right, I apologize.

                              Harvey wrote:
                              Long filenames aside, wouldn't it be difficult to run about any
                              version of Windows without booting into some sort of DOS system
                              first?

                              Harvey,
                              Yes, at least versions 3.x, 95, and 98. For version 2000 and for NT, I am
                              not sure.

                              Regards,

                              Wayland Fowler
                              Software Engineer (and all around nice guy!)
                              (281) 280-4446
                            • Jim Beidle
                              Thanks for the explanation, Wayland. What you re saying makes sense, along with what I already knew and what Don related in his posting. As to WinNT 4.0 and
                              Message 14 of 15 , Jan 4, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Thanks for the explanation, Wayland. What you're saying makes sense, along
                                with what I already knew and what Don related in his posting.

                                As to WinNT 4.0 and Win2K, they were developed independently from DOS as
                                true 32 bit Operating systems. While they have a "command line" mode that
                                emulates DOS in some ways, it isn't DOS and was built from scratch. NT4 goes
                                through a non-gui phase during start up as it loads various drivers, but
                                this is not directly accessible by "Joe User". That's part of what makes NT
                                more secure than its DOS/WIN cousins. A good reference on NT4 structure is
                                the _Windows NT Workstation Resource Kit_; Another is _Running Windows NT
                                Workstation 4.0_. NoteTab Pro works great on NT, BTW because Eric built it
                                as a true 32-bit application. The 16-bit versions of NoteTab or any
                                application may periodically fail since they may make DOS calls that aren't
                                part of the NT structure. Hope all that helps.. . .

                                Jim

                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Wayland_B_Fowler@...
                                [mailto:Wayland_B_Fowler@...]
                                Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:04 PM
                                To: ntb-html@egroups.com
                                Subject: RE: [NH] Dumb question time again


                                Jim wrote:
                                So, if I understand correctly Wayland, the limitations were because of web
                                servers running on DOS or older windows (e.g., NT 3.51) or some other OS.
                                Or
                                software ported to Unix from those platforms? In other words, why do some
                                web servers get cranky about the extensions and others don't, when they're
                                running on Unix?

                                Jim,
                                I wish I could say I was a real expert on this, but that would be
                                stretching things, more than just a little. With regard to how these OSs
                                deal with files, DOS and Win3.x (and I think 95, 98) are extension
                                dependent whereas Unix is attribute dependent. That is, unlike Unix, DOS
                                (and its Windows pals) do not know what to do with most files without its
                                extension. Same goes for its server software, for example Apache. On
                                newer versions of Windows the mime settings can be set to recognize either
                                .htm or .html (or if someone is daring enough, any other extension).
                                Chances are that, on the newer versions, it already defaults to both. The
                                older Windows versions (3.x) would not allow more than the three character
                                extension. As far as software ported to unix is concerned, most of its
                                servers should be able to handle either extension, if it doesn't then
                                perhaps the mime settings (or perhaps a .ini file) for the server software
                                should be set to handle both. I think this is correct, if it is not quite
                                right, I apologize.

                                Harvey wrote:
                                Long filenames aside, wouldn't it be difficult to run about any
                                version of Windows without booting into some sort of DOS system
                                first?

                                Harvey,
                                Yes, at least versions 3.x, 95, and 98. For version 2000 and for NT, I am
                                not sure.

                                Regards,

                                Wayland Fowler
                                Software Engineer (and all around nice guy!)
                                (281) 280-4446
                              • Toby Scott
                                Larry and all, I think all servers can be configured to handle any extension you care to add -- as long as you are the system administrator. In NT and Win2000,
                                Message 15 of 15 , Jan 8, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Larry and all,

                                  I think all servers can be configured to handle any extension you care to
                                  add -- as long as you are the system administrator.

                                  In NT and Win2000, I can add as many default file name and extensions for
                                  the initial page as I want. If that isn't clear, my default extensions on
                                  the server I administer are:

                                  index.htm
                                  index.html
                                  index.cfm
                                  default.htm
                                  default.html

                                  If there is an index.htm file in the default directory for a URL, it is
                                  automatically displayed when someone types www.xyz.com (or whatever). If
                                  there is no index.htm then index.html will display, etc.

                                  These are fairly easily configured, but if you are an administrator and
                                  start setting each URL differently, doing tech support when a client has a
                                  problem is murder. Therefore, most administrators attempt to keep a fairly
                                  uniform list. If a customer asks for the default to be set to index.shtml
                                  for example, I will add it after my standard 5.

                                  For those of you who wonder, .cfm is Cold Fusion, which is what I mainly
                                  use.

                                  Toby Scott
                                  Ventura County Computers
                                  2175 Goodyear Avenue
                                  Suite 117
                                  Ventura, CA 93003

                                  (805) 289-3960
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.