.htm or .html?

[Zarel]

I've always wondered about this... is it better to make an HTML file .htm or .html?

[Mittineague]

AFAIK the "htm" extension is from the time when filenames were limited to only 8 characters (joliet name) and file extensions were limited to only 3 characters. Things have changed a lot since then and there should be no problem with using "html" for current machines.

[learningAlways]

html because its easier and simpler

[SRTech]

I'd go with .html as it makes more sense. I can't confirm it, but I think search engines prefer .html (though maybe only over .scriptinglanguage)

[stymiee]

I can't confirm it, but I think search engines prefer .html (though maybe only over .scriptinglanguage)

That's a common myth. Search engines give no prefernce to any file extension.

[htmlguy]

Yea, you can use any file extension, and search engines will index you the same. The content is what matters . I actually use .shtml, when i am not using .php, I'm not sure why, but it works just as well.
HTMLGuy

[triphp]

I've always wondered about this... is it better to make an HTML file .htm or .html?

I think both are the same

[DaveWoods]

Yea, you can use any file extension, and search engines will index you the same. The content is what matters . I actually use .shtml, when i am not using .php, I'm not sure why, but it works just as well.
HTMLGuy

.htm or .html don't let you use server side includes. .shtml do

To be honest though I'd probably just use a .php extension then as well though as if you later decide you need some php functionality in the page then you can quite easily slot it in without needing to worry about changing extensions and then changing all the links which link to that page.

If you know it's going to be a static site then personally I'd just use .html but most of the time I know that I'll at least be using some .php functionality to drive navigation so most of my sites now use the .php extension.

[vgarcia]

.htm or .html don't let you use server side includes. .shtml do

To be honest though I'd probably just use a .php extension then as well though as if you later decide you need some php functionality in the page then you can quite easily slot it in without needing to worry about changing extensions and then changing all the links which link to that page.

But you're incurring PHP processing overhead on static content which is kinda wasteful.

[r937]

But you're incurring PHP processing overhead on static content which is kinda wasteful.

that's true only if the server actually has php installed and listening

[Zarel]

Also, naming it .php makes me unable to view them in my browser without uploading it to my server first. Plus, when I make something .html, it's usually to send to someone else, someone who might not have a server and/or PHP installed, so I can't just make it .php.

[Tyssen]

Also, naming it .php makes me unable to view them in my browser without uploading it to my server first.

You can if you install a WAMP package like XAMPP or Uniform Server.

[stridox]

I usually just go ahead and use .php, but sometimes I'm on a comp without any server installed to it, and then that's just a pain. I just go ahead and use .html when that happens, since html is what the page is written in

[dAEk]

It doesn't matter what extension you use.

For instance, I can serve my jsp pages with a .dll, .php, .asp, .html or .whateverIwant extension. It's up to the server to send the appropiate mime type. The client doesn't (and shouldn't) care about the file extension!

If you run html-files on the local computer instead of through a web server, then of course it's different.

[Hexagone]

It' doesn't really matter what extension you put.

I'm starting to really like the idea of no extension at all. It makes for a better looking URL ex. http://mysite.com/contact

[stilltsie]

.htm or .html don't let you use server side includes. .shtml do

Hmm I dont think that is true. My site utilizes SSI and all pages are *.htm

My include file is *.shtml