Niether as far as I know... .htm might save bandwidth :p bytes do add up.

There aint no difference when you use the two...
U can Use either

hmm nice one, I liked the low bandwidth one.
A tech note:
htm supports the UNIX web server and Windows web server while HTML supports windows web server.

So it's always safe to use HTM since when changing from Windows Web server to Unix one won't be a problem however, having HTML extension and changing from Windows to Unix web server... A pain in @$$. Uniz does nto support extensions > 3.

very interesting .... thanks ....

The above is quite wrong, let's explain a little:

a) In UNIX systems, there is no limit for filename extensions.
b) In UNIX systems, files are case sensitive, so index.htm would no be the same as index.HTM or INDEX.HTM
c) Originally in Windows systems prior to Windows 95, all filenames consisted on up to 8 charaters + up to 3 character extension. In Windows 95/98, Microsoft introduced the use of extended filenaming, however, because this was made on top of Windows 3.1 + MS-DOS, logically the files are still named with up to 8 chars + 3 char extension:

Example: Folder "Program Files" really is Progra~1 (The ~1 tells us that this uses the extender filename support).

In Windows XP (or Windows 2000) this is more hidden, but still if you open a MS-DOS session and type cd \proga~1 would work.

d) Both kind of servers support .htm or .html files, the decision is up to you, however, as a standard for compatibility between the two platforms, always name your files in lowecase, as the difference between different cases in UNIX might bring a problem.

Hope this helps clarify this confussion.

Best Wishes,

Jugar_asp
(BTW, I am a techie guy)

.html typically seems to be more popular. I don't really mind either one, myself, I suppose. Depends on if I feel like typing the extra 'l' or not

as long as the web server supports it, it doesn't really matter.