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

Re: [NH] Dumb question time again

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 15 , Jan 4, 2001
      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 2 of 15 , Jan 4, 2001
        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 3 of 15 , Jan 4, 2001
          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 4 of 15 , Jan 4, 2001
            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 5 of 15 , Jan 4, 2001
              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 6 of 15 , Jan 4, 2001
                >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 7 of 15 , Jan 4, 2001
                  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 8 of 15 , Jan 4, 2001
                    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 9 of 15 , Jan 4, 2001
                      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 10 of 15 , Jan 4, 2001
                        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 11 of 15 , Jan 4, 2001
                          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 12 of 15 , Jan 8, 2001
                            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.