.htm vs .html extensions

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
What do you think of a site that is built with all html files ending with
.htm instead of the .html?

Is this bad for the search engines?
and if it were to change, would the search engines be confused if all the
sudden all the extensions were rename to .html?


Re: .htm vs .html extensions

Quoted text here. Click to load it

All search engines seem quite happy with either .htm or .html    Some search
engines can deal with many other files types also, but all can deal with
.htm and .html

I recommend that you don't change any file names as you will lose the links
from any references to that page that have already been created - not just
in search engines but in other web sites, user favourites lists, toolbar
recordings etc.

Normally, a file called filename.htm will not appear if you ask for
filename.html.   You can use something called a 301 redirect, if your server
config is set to accept an .htaccess file.  I suspect that .htaccess can be
used to repoint all requests for .htm to .html.  If you did this you would
be creating a lot of extra processing.  Is it worth the processing time?

.htm has the advantage of being shorter and more compatible with older
operating systems and programs.   Every unnecessary character you can trim
off page lengths is good.

Best regards, Eric.

Re: .htm vs .html extensions

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It makes no difference. .html is the W3C standard, while .htm is the
ISO9660 standard.  All known browsers and web servers handle both.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

They don't care.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes, unless you do a redirect.

Site Timeline