<form> re-direct by radio button choice

[Jonathan N. Little]

No it doesn't. Three letter file extensions predate microsoft, and due
to their long legacy in computing are widely used.

Hmmm are you referring to CP/M? The 8.3 limit as with DOS was due to FAT
filesystem. It didn't do networking if I recall so what is your point?
What does predate MS and does networking and "was" the Internet before
Bill recognized its importance was the *nix's. File extensions have no
significance, just part of the filename so there was never a preference
of htm over html. htm only appeared after MS "discovered" the Internet...

 

[Tim Streater]

Hmmm are you referring to CP/M? The 8.3 limit as with DOS was due to FAT
filesystem. It didn't do networking if I recall so what is your point?
What does predate MS and does networking and "was" the Internet before
Bill recognized its importance was the *nix's. File extensions have no
significance, just part of the filename so there was never a preference
of htm over html. htm only appeared after MS "discovered" the Internet...

Indeed. IME, .htm *always* means the stuff is hosted on a Windows system.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Indeed. IME, .htm *always* means the stuff is hosted on a Windows system.

Yes I agree, there was no other reason to truncate the extension. Other
hosting systems the document could easily have been
"document.hypertext.document", "document.HypertextDocument", "document",
or "document.foobar" since the filetype is not linked to any part of the
filename.

 

[Mike Duffy]

Yes, the browser will not care about the file extension, but
certainly will with your approach if it also reflects a
"prehistoric" MS-specific methodology.

I always test my website using the latest versions of the 6 most
popular browsers (IE FF Opera Safari Chrome Konqueror).

I use 3 character extensions exclusively.

So do you think I am "prehistoric"?

 

[William Gill]

Yes I agree, there was no other reason to truncate the extension. Other
hosting systems the document could easily have been
"document.hypertext.document", "document.HypertextDocument", "document",
or "document.foobar" since the filetype is not linked to any part of the
filename.

And you would, by using any non-standardized naming convention, greatly
increased your odds of making referencing errors (not to mention MIME
type considerations).

As I (poorly) told Beauregard, I long ago standardized to three
character extensions, when my network had 4 *nix boxes and 2 win boxes,
and all my development and production servers were on the *nix boxes.

As I said, .htm worked seamlessly, and .html didn't. Having to chose a
convention (standard) I chose the one with less considerations. Then
again I only had an aversion to paying license fees for IIS, not to MS
in general.

As an aside, how many times do people here admonish for the dependence
on js because a percentage of visitors would be impacted, but then some
of those same Dutch uncle's go out of their way to disregard anything
that could be seen as MS centric.

As far as naming convention goes, consistent is good, simple and
consistent is better. At least IMHO.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I always test my website using the latest versions of the 6 most
popular browsers (IE FF Opera Safari Chrome Konqueror).

I use 3 character extensions exclusively.

So do you think I am "prehistoric"?

Did I call you prehistoric?

I would advise that you not use IE for your primary development
checking. Far better to use one of the others like Firefox first, then
tweak afterward to accommodate IE's "features". Do you the reverse
usually involves more development time and the result may not be as
"elegant".

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

And you would, by using any non-standardized naming convention, greatly
increased your odds of making referencing errors (not to mention MIME
type considerations).

As I (poorly) told Beauregard, I long ago standardized to three
character extensions, when my network had 4 *nix boxes and 2 win boxes,
and all my development and production servers were on the *nix boxes.

As I said, .htm worked seamlessly, and .html didn't.

If there was a problem is should have only been with the Windows
clients...if not you had a server configuration problem.

Having to chose a
convention (standard) I chose the one with less considerations. Then
again I only had an aversion to paying license fees for IIS, not to MS
in general.

*nix & Apache doesn't primary use file extensions to discern filetype.
On my public server I could fix the need for the .htaccess file linking
image/svg+xml .svg by updating the magic file.

BTW, an example from a past post what type of file is this?

http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/rhino.dung

or this:

http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/rhino.poop

As an aside, how many times do people here admonish for the dependence
on js because a percentage of visitors would be impacted, but then some
of those same Dutch uncle's go out of their way to disregard anything
that could be seen as MS centric.

It is a matter of dependency vs accommodation with respect to both.

As far as naming convention goes, consistent is good, simple and
consistent is better. At least IMHO.

naming convention was not truly criticized, only if it indicated a
possible restrictive design approach, e.g.: "This site required MS IE4
or greater"

 

[William Gill]

*nix & Apache doesn't primary use file extensions to discern filetype.
On my public server I could fix the need for the .htaccess file linking
image/svg+xml .svg by updating the magic file.

I know. However I wasn't concerned about the server. I was concerned
about the designer. If I manually enter a link I don't want to have to
look at about.htm, or contact.htm to make sure it isn't about.html or
contact.html. PHP adds a minor exception, but I usually know when I'm
working on a static or dynamic site.

Like I said, I could have decided to use designer initials as the
extension, but that would entail lots of mime type entries, and lots of
human mistakes.

It is a matter of dependency vs accommodation with respect to both.


naming convention was not truly criticized, only if it indicated a
possible restrictive design approach, e.g.: "This site required MS IE4
or greater"

Agreed, but this spur of this thread started with the assumption that
anyone choosing a naming convention other than .html was automatically
in the restricted camp. Which isn't correct.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I know. However I wasn't concerned about the server. I was concerned
about the designer. If I manually enter a link I don't want to have to
look at about.htm, or contact.htm to make sure it isn't about.html or
contact.html. PHP adds a minor exception, but I usually know when I'm
working on a static or dynamic site.

Well in my new websites and hopefully when I get time to finish my own
refurbish site my pages have *no* extensions.

www.example.com/about and www.example.com/contact

The best in my option, then it doesn't break urls if you change from
static or dynamic, platform, whatever...

 

[Lewis]

Indeed. IME, .htm *always* means the stuff is hosted on a Windows system.

Nah, most commercial webhosts allow both extensions so as not to confuse
their lusers, and they don't tend to run on Windows.

Heck, even my webserver allows both, and it is now and always has been
FreeBSD.