Re: HTML differences

by "Ted Temer" <temer(at)>

 Date:  Tue, 21 Sep 1999 12:53:04 -0700
 To:  <hwg-basics(at)>
  todo: View Thread, Original

Wow--somebody is conning somebody somewhere. Unless you are
omitting something crucial to the subject in your post, here are
some random thoughts.

HTML is HTML whether it is written on a PC, UNIX, Mac or even a

Now--having said that--there is good HTML and bad HTML and yes,
there can be special code written that a particular server would
balk at.

An example would be common ordinary ASP. An Apache UNIX server,
WITHOUT SPECIAL SOFTWARE, would refuse to run it. However, even
in this case the server could be replaced with one that would run
ASP for a lot less than 25 grand and could be up and running in
hours assuming you have normal UPS Air service. And in this case,
special software could be added for a fraction of the cost of
replacing the server.

HTML 4.0 covers a lot of ground and it is possible that your
group has incorporated something the other group is not familiar
with but offhand, their reaction seems a little extreme and kind
of silly. One doubts they are in fact, silly, so ...

There MUST be something going on here over and above the facts
described in your post.

Locally we had a big war over Includes. The solution finally
turned out to be as simple as going into the Administration
software of an NT server and typing in ".html" in the .htaccess
command. The other side had to promise to save all pages without
Includes as ".htm" to satisfy one person who was worried over
extra server load.

The point here is that the PERSON was the one worried. The server
did not care one way or the other. I suspect when you get past
the rhetoric and down to the details, your problem may hopefully
be as easy to solve.

Best wishes
Ted Temer
Temercraft Designs Redding, CA

>My department created a new web site for our company using a
PC-based web
>authoring program.  Now our MIS folks say they will have to
>rewrite the HTML code (requiring 55 days to the tune of $25
grand) "to be
>compatible" with the server.  Both groups use HTML 4.0.  How can
this be?

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA