1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

html vs. htm

Discussion in 'HTML & Website Design' started by star2323, Dec 22, 2005.

  1. #1
    Is their any differences between naming your static pages .html vs. .htm?

    Which is better?

    Are they equal?
    SEMrush
    Thanks
     
    star2323, Dec 22, 2005 IP
    SEMrush
  2. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #2
    It doesn't matter. They are equal.

    You may have some restrictions on your home page (depends how the server is set up but one of mine would accept index.htm - demanded I use index.html, although it was happy with .htm for all other pages).
     
    minstrel, Dec 22, 2005 IP
  3. fsmedia

    fsmedia Prominent Member

    Messages:
    5,165
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    390
    #3
    I agree, they are essentially the same. I personally favor .html over .htm simply because I think .html looks more professional. If I have the choice, I'll go ahead with /pages/like/this/ instead of /pages/like/this.html simply because I like using that style. Neither are better, they are same. A++ Minstrel.
     
    fsmedia, Dec 22, 2005 IP
  4. star2323

    star2323 Peon

    Messages:
    445
    Likes Received:
    7
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #4
    I know it is ideal to keep your file structure as flat as possible for the spiders.

    Does that mean your link structure or the physical files in your wwwroot diretory?

    For example:

    wwwroot/articles/a/whatever/article.html

    index.php links to article.html

    So article.html would be 1 link deep right?

    Not 3 deep like it is in the wwwroot directory.
     
    star2323, Dec 22, 2005 IP
  5. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #5
    Yes. I don't personally like /pages/like/this/ or /pages/like/this.html - personal preference probably but that looks spammy to me.

    I agree that I have a preference for html on new sites now - although my oldest site is still mostly htm because that's how it began and I don't want the hassle of redirecting all those pages.
     
    minstrel, Dec 22, 2005 IP
  6. fsmedia

    fsmedia Prominent Member

    Messages:
    5,165
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    390
    #6
    I only like /pages/like/this/ because I normally do something like domain.com/info/about/ or something like that, I just like it better, but that's my own opinion. I don't feel it's spammy, just a personal preference. Thanks for your two cents as well, good input minstrel.
     
    fsmedia, Dec 22, 2005 IP
    minstrel likes this.
  7. star2323

    star2323 Peon

    Messages:
    445
    Likes Received:
    7
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #7
    Oooops I meant to start a new thread on that other question.

    Thanks for the responses on the .html vs. .htm
     
    star2323, Dec 22, 2005 IP
  8. FeelLikeANut

    FeelLikeANut Peon

    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    19
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #8
    Actually, there is some real benefit to the former. It is what is known as cruft-free URLs. The idea is to remove non-essential information. For instance, whether any given page is static HTML, HTML with SSI commands, PHP code, ASP code, etc., is non-essential to the outside world. If a URL path (/info/about) corresponds to a particular file (/public/info-about.html) then you can safely change your pages to PHP (/public/info-about.php) without breaking the original URL path; /info/about would still be the correct path. This way the links on your pages, the links on other people's pages that refer to yours, and the bookmarks stored by visitors will all continue to function.

    And for star2323, .html is the more technically correct notation. .htm exists only because ancient operating systems, such as the original DOS, could not handle extensions with more than three characters.
     
    FeelLikeANut, Dec 22, 2005 IP
  9. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #9
    Nonsense. It's not a matter of correct or incorrect. They simply are. Either can be used; neither has an advantage over the other.
     
    minstrel, Dec 22, 2005 IP
    fsmedia likes this.
  10. AMysticWeb

    AMysticWeb Guest

    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #10
    I am a FrontPage user, so FP names everything .htm

    Talk about marching to a different drummer. MS has that market cornered.

    I agree one is not better than the other.

    However, most of the hosts I have used seem to use either index.html or default.html as home page, so I always name my home page index.html and stop worrying about it after that.

    BTW I am seriously new here. Would like to wish everyone a safe and happy holiday season.
     
    AMysticWeb, Dec 23, 2005 IP
  11. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #11
    Actually, I believe you can change that if you prefer .html - Adove GoLive also uses htm by default (or used to - haven't tried and don't want to try the most recent versions of that).
     
    minstrel, Dec 23, 2005 IP
  12. fsmedia

    fsmedia Prominent Member

    Messages:
    5,165
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    390
    #12
    I also recommend moving away from FrontPage. If I were to use any kind of HTML editor as such, I would use DreamWeaver. Secondly, you can simply rename those files using f2 and rename the file to .html outside of the frontpage editor, you don't need to keep them to .htm if you really want them as .html.
     
    fsmedia, Dec 23, 2005 IP
  13. Malachim

    Malachim Peon

    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    5
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #13
    Nope, no difference. Between the two I've always named them .html myself.

    Or I would if all my files weren't .php now :D

    .
     
    Malachim, Dec 23, 2005 IP
  14. tonie

    tonie Peon

    Messages:
    209
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #14
    no diffrences htm betwen html
     
    tonie, Dec 23, 2005 IP
  15. SEbasic

    SEbasic Peon

    Messages:
    6,318
    Likes Received:
    318
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #15
    /pages/like/this/ are much better for branding and user friendliness (sp?!?).
     
    SEbasic, Dec 23, 2005 IP
  16. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #16
    Maybe if you stutter... :eek:
     
    minstrel, Dec 23, 2005 IP
  17. FeelLikeANut

    FeelLikeANut Peon

    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    19
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #17
    I did not say one has an advantage over the other. Technically correct generally means one is preferred over the other based on a theoretical basis. .htm exists solely because of an old software restriction. That restriction is now long gone, and continuing to use .htm makes as much sense as using a .ph extention for a PHP page, or .as for an ASP page.
     
    FeelLikeANut, Dec 23, 2005 IP
  18. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #18
    Okay. Then let me rephrase my reply.

    Nonsense. It's not a matter of technically correct or technically incorrect. They simply are. Either can be used; neither has an advantage over the other.
     
    minstrel, Dec 23, 2005 IP
  19. mdvaldosta

    mdvaldosta Peon

    Messages:
    4,079
    Likes Received:
    362
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #19
    It doesn't matter which is used at all. Htm is just shorter. Seems everyone hates M$ (jealous maybe?) so they jump on the html and Firefox bandwagon. Me? When I don't use either, I use folders "/" and php - static pages or not but thats just habit now since I run my sites on php includes.
     
    mdvaldosta, Dec 23, 2005 IP
    minstrel likes this.
  20. FeelLikeANut

    FeelLikeANut Peon

    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    19
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #20
    I did not say anything to the contrary. None of this supports your new rephrased sentence either. That both can be used with no practical difference does not subtract from the possibility of one being a more technically correct notation.
     
    FeelLikeANut, Dec 23, 2005 IP