One final thought to get

webwiz — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 05:27:10 +0000

One final thought to get back to the original question:

If you can get away with it with your host, you may consider using .php for all your files, instead of .html. They don't have to contain any PHP processing directives to work, and you won't then have to change all your links should you decide to use PHP later.

Sorry for the excessive posting, but hope this helps.

Umm. I wasn't thinking of

webwiz — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 05:13:23 +0000

Umm. I wasn't thinking of AddType - I was talking about the DirectoryIndex directive. That may or may not be alterable via .htaccess. But this is complicated by things such as MultiViews and URL rewriting...

But this is getting off topic. I just wanted the OP to be aware that hosts can set up Apache in many different ways, so there are no hard and fast rules. Best to consult with your own hosting provider on these matters, methinks.

you should be able to change

decibel.places — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:34:47 +0000

you should be able to change that in .htaccess add

AddType text/html .html

the htaccess Cheatsheet lists some other uses for .htaccess

You were probably using some

decibel.places — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:28:43 +0000

You were probably using some version of Windows 3 (3.1, 3.1.1 aka "Windows for Workgroups") which was incapable of handling a 4 character extension.

Or perhaps software running on Windows 95/98 that was designed to work with Windows 3

My first computer was an IBM PS/2 with Windows 3.1.1 - it had I think 64KB of RAM and a 6MB hard drive - 16 color graphics card - modem? Hahahahaha

I kept my applications on 3.5" floppies and installed them, used them, uninstalled them, next...

When I worked in Kinkos in 1998 people were still coming in with 5 1/4" floppies, we had one machine for that.

diamonddollars77

webwiz — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:06:29 +0000

diamonddollars77 wrote:

There are no difference between .htm and.html

Well... It depends. I have come across hosts set up to accept index.htm as the home page but not index.html, and other hosts where the opposite is true.

I imagine that, in most cases, you are correct. But be aware that there are some exceptions.

There are no difference

diamonddollars77 — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:01:11 +0000

There are no difference between .htm and.html They are the same thing, The correct extension is .html, the cause the .htm extension was introduced was that Microsoft original OSs could only recognise an eight character name with a three character extension.

Suzanne — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:53:22 +0000

Having no extension future proofs quite a bit (plus using a database reduces further issues with tinkering with files directly), but I like .html because it's so clear. For me, too, .htm just screams FRONTPAGE and MS and bad memories of buttons and backgrounds and embedded midi files.

aarathi — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:02:53 +0000

both htm or html are same.

Roo — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:56:03 +0000

Yeah waaaaaay back in 199something when I put up my first God awful site on my ISP space that I had back then, you had to use .htm for some strange reason.

Now IMO it's best to use .html because that is what most people are used to, so it will be easier for users to remember that they went to contact.html vs contact.htm for example.

Sonic_Wolf — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:27:13 +0000

Cool, thanks for the heads up guys