From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-11 14:18:20
--- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...>
> > I've checked things in and I'm working on updating/fixing some of
> > problems, including the above cut-and-paste mistakes. I've found
> > few more in addition to that. One question I have is whether the
> > extension .html is OK or if I should change to .htm.
> > The Boost web
> > site works with .html, so the only problem, if there is one,
> > for a platform that doesn't like extensions of more then 3
> > and the use of offline reading on those platforms. I don't know
> > there are such platforms that we have to worry about, but would
> > an "official Boost stance" on this.
> .htm must die ;-)
> I hate the fact that when I'm typing in a boost URL, I can never
> which one it is. HTML is standard; .htm is just a concession to MS
8.3 won't work with a large percent of the HTML files on the Boost
web site any way (they have names > 8 characters). I agree that the
mix of extensions is a MAJOR pain, and my own personal hope was that
use of templates would help to lessen the usage of multiple
extensions. I just wasn't sure if the .htm usage by a large number
of current HTML files was because of 8.3 reasons (which seemed
unlikely since many of those files had names larger then 8
characters) or because of some other platform issues I was unaware of.
At the least I want to pick one and only one extension for the
templates (currently it uses .html). What would be great is if we
decided this once and for all, documented, and made the necessary
changes to make all of Boost use one extension... but I was at least
a little scared to suggest this until you gave the above opinion ;).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk