hwg-basics archives | Sep 1999 | new search | results | previous | next |
Re: HTML differencesby "Ted Temer" <temer(at)c-zone.net> |
|
Patti: 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 LINIX. 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 temer(at)c-zone.net http://www.temercraft.com http://www.newsredding.com/ >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 completely >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