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

Re: [NH] Dumb question time again

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.