Mailing-List: contact bugs-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache HTTPD Bugs Notification List" <bugs@httpd.apache.org>
Date: 3 Feb 2003 22:02:59 -0000
Message-ID: <20030203220259.7867.qmail@nagoya.betaversion.org>
From: bugzilla@apache.org
To: bugs@httpd.apache.org
Cc: 
Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 13986]  -
    remove default MIME-type

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13986>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13986

remove default MIME-type


------- Additional Comments From nd@perlig.de  2003-02-03 22:02 -------
Well, I've read now through the bugzilla thread at mozilla org.
Principially I disagree, that Apache is to blame about the wrong content-type.
If the webmaster is not able to configure the server well (at least by request),
he should take his hat and do another job elsewhere - far far away (sounds hard?
maybe.)

However, a "DefaultType None" feature would be rather simple to build in,
although I wouldn't make it default. RFC 2616 is quite clear about it.
"Content-type SHOULD be set, blah", which basically means "set it always, unless
there are _real_ good reason to omit it".

If I understand the nature of the (mozilla) bugreport, this probably wouldn't
help you, because it relies on dumb admins, that leave all default stuff in.

The next, more practical point is - it would break some modules (just grep the
source tree for ap_default_type), since these rely on a real non-NULL
content-type. Because of this, I'm very sure, it will never apply to the 2.0
branch. (API compat)

ok, and now?
Let's have a short look back to mozilla. The people decided to accept CSS files
only with the approriate MIME type (text/css), which is of course absolutely
correct. What did really happen? Some people complained in newsgroups,
mailingslists etc ("scream, why do my CSS not work?") and were teached to
configure their servers properly or alternatively harrass their ISPs to do it
for them.
My conclusion: if it's neccessary, the people _do_ configure their servers.

I'd suggest: if you still want to patch it in Apache, ask the people on the
devlist about their opinion (please ask more times, if nobody responds ;-)

(Just an idea: maybe, a simple patch of the default config would also be
sufficient (AddType directives) for your problem?)

But said all that, the main problem you're trying to solve is neither in Apache
nor in Mozilla (or whatever browser). It's in the world out there ... YMMV.

HTH.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: bugs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: bugs-help@httpd.apache.org