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

RE: [NH] Dumb question time again

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.