.htm vs .html [closed]

Question

Which extension should I choose for my HTML files and why?

Answer 1

It's the same in terms of functionality and support. (most OS recognize both, most Search Engines recognize both)

For my everyday use, I choose .htm because it's shorter to type by 25%.

Answer 2

Neither!

If you're asking; "what would a website visitor rather type, htm or html" - it's much better to give them a nice descriptive URL with no extension. If they get used to going to yoursite/contact.html and you change it to yoursite/contact.php you've broken that link. If you use yoursite/contact/ then there's no problem when you switch technology.

Answer 3

I guess it's a little too late now however the only time it does make a difference is when you set up HTML signatures on MS Outlook (even 2010). It's just not able to handle .html extensions, only .htm

Answer 4

Since nowadays, computers support widely any length as file type, the choice is now only personal. Back in the early days of Windows where only 3 letters where supported, you had to use .htm, but not anymore.

Answer 5

Same thing.. makes no difference at all... htm was used in the days where only 3 letter extensions were common.

Answer 6

If you plan on putting the files on a machine supporting only 8.3 naming convention, you should limit the extension to 3 characters.

Otherwise, better choose the more descriptive .html version.