RE: New site

Fixed version of last email  *sorry* typing, cutting and pasting way too
fast:


> Subject: 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 (NT is defaulted to that)machines
with Frontpage Extensions
> (which I found in IIS 4.0 is loaded by default with it);
> .html can be a lot of systems  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 variable 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