RE: New site

Don't know if this has been addressed yet, but the notion of an extension
looking unprofessional is assinine.

.htm you will find typically on NT/IIS machines with Frontpage Extensions
(which I found in IIS 4.0 is loaded by default with it);
.html can be a lot of systems (NT is defaulted to that) or usually a unix
box.
.cfm files for example, are Cold Fusion files.  Dynamic database-driven
pages.
There are more--it just depends on the server's loaded modules.

So I suppose this gentleman is saying that if you carrying a viable via a
URL, it is as well unprofessional?  <grin>

Eric J Hoffman
Director of Internet Initiatives
Meagher & Geer, PLLP

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org
> [mailto:owner-hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org]On Behalf Of Mike Taylor
> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 3:31 AM
> To: no To-header on input
> Cc: hwg-graphics(at)hwg.org; hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org
> Subject: Re: New site
>
>
> >
> >However, a lot of programs still default to .htm for some reason. It'll
> >work, but it's not "right" and looks unprofessional. Since most computers
> >can handle more than 8.3, there's no reason why you shouldn't just save
> >your files on your computer as *.html
>
>
> How does using a certain file extension make a *file* look unprofessional?
> What reason is there to add one extra character instead of just using HTM?
> Answer:  there's no reason at all.  C'mon, this point is a bit
> silly.   I'd
> be interested in official documentation indicating "right" and
> "wrong" file
> extensions because I doubt any exist.
>
> Mike
>
>
>

HWG: hwg-graphics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA