.htm or .html?

It doesn't really matter which you use, the three letter extension is a hangover from Dos/Windows 8.3 days, however hackers/coders will snigger at you if you use the three letter variant as it's considered newb like and uneducated and you'll stand out as an amateur, so I often use it just to be perverse it looks dirty because it's stunted and ugly like some strange MS file extension of dubious application such as .htc, something that smacks of virus and malicious coding. whereas .html is nobel, proclaiming it's full heritage and birthright proudly.

Lets sit back and wait for the coders to offer protestation

Hugo.

.htm for me - I often get hangovers

I'm just stuck in the past, and cannot move past years of using three letter extensions, that and always looking for economy in files, yeah ok I'm just lazy really can't be bothered to find the 'L'

You never know, we might all have to start over, re-invent DOS and the .htm extension.

Does anyone really care?

Both are recognised as files containing html. All I would say is don't mix them, use one and stick with it.

Though this is slightly (ever so) off-topic, I want to throw this link out there. Back when I first read it, I never really considered the usefulness of the article. By now it's become a part of every website I build. It will help you worry less about file extensions altogether and improve site aesthetics and expandability. If you've never read it, please do. I would consider this a must-read.

- Antibland

Ever so slightly off at a minor tangent

I would hope everyone knows to end with a trailing slash, the url construction is likewise one of those better practises that should be followed and also means that you always have an index file in the directory blocking any attempts at a directory listing.

Hugo.

Antibland,

Thanks for the article. I will start implementing the slash from here on.