Re: .htm versus .html
by Christopher Higgs <c.higgs(at)landfood.unimelb.edu.au>
|
| Date: |
Sun, 12 Dec 1999 11:30:12 +1100 |
| To: |
"Harold A. Driscoll" <harold(at)driscoll.chi.il.us>,
"Kevin W. Bishop" <bishopk(at)rpi.edu> |
| Cc: |
HWG Style <hwg-style(at)hwg.org> |
| References: |
rpi |
| |
todo: View
Thread,
Original
|
|
At 16:50 10/12/99 -0600, Harold A. Driscoll wrote:
>Since there is no technological justification for the .htm corruption, the
>only reasons I can suggest for your using .htm would be to confuse end
>users and/or to show solidarity with Microsoft's flaunting of Internet
>standards and conventions.
Yet the fact that both variations are "recognised" by users, means web
authors can take advantage of the difference to make one recognised as
server parsed, while the other remains plain HTML - rather than confusing
the users further with .shtml or (even worse) .stm :)
Chris Higgs <c.higgs(at)landfood.unimelb.edu.au>
Institute of Land and Food Resources
University of Melbourne http://www.landfood.unimelb.edu.au
HWG hwg-style mailing list archives,
maintained by Webmasters @ IWA