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
      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
    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.