What do you think ? Is it more suitable to have a HTML or a HTM extension in my URL ? Regards Thibaut
You could use *.web in theory if you wanted and parse it to HTML in .htaccess and it wouldn't have any more or less effect on SEO. Web document extensions have zero effect on SEO, same has the actual language used to render HTML.
Who cares. Extensions doens't realy care anymore except for attatchments, images, video's, music and other stuff. I've seen examples like. .fok (nothing adult, just an extension in the netherlands) .wii .lol .wep so everything except reserved words you can use
It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. It's simply a syntactical difference depending on what type of server is hosting the website. Linux and Unix based servers use the html suffix while a Microsoft Windows based server uses the htm suffix.
Yes, according top SEO both are same, .... but I always use .html instead of .htm because HTML is an initialism of HyperText Markup Language, and HTM reminds me the 80 years with that ugly filenames of 8+3 characters (name + extension).
It's generally same indication, It's very simple. You always need to make your index page extension as .html. for inner pages you can use html or htm, no difference.
Actually, no you don't. Do some reading on .htaccess file and parsing server-side languages to different file types.
Sorry, but that is NOT true. Most modern HTTP servers offer a configurable list of filenames that the server can use as an index. For example, in Apache Web Server the list of filenames is controlled by the DirectoryIndex (The DirectoryIndex directive sets the list of resources to look for, when the client requests an index of the directory by specifying a / at the end of the directory name) directive in the main server configuration file or in .htaccess file of that directory as ssandecki said.