httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Behlendorf <br...@hyperreal.com>
Subject Re: HTM vs. HTML/Netscape (fwd)
Date Thu, 02 Jan 1997 15:46:16 GMT

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 06:56 -0500
From: Ken A L Coar <COAR@PROCESS.COM>
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Subject: Re: HTM vs. HTML/Netscape (fwd)

>From the fingers of Alexei Kosut flowed the following:
>
>On Wed, 1 Jan 1997, Cliff Skolnick wrote:
>
>> I think we need to think about considering .htm to be text/html for our 
>> next release.  This message is one of many on the bsdi list.
>
>The mime.types file that comes with Apache has had both htm and html
>associated with text/html for the entire 1.2 release - possibly even
>1.1 (I'd have to go back and check). My guess is that people don't
>think about upgrading mime.types files when they upgrade their
>servers.

    I'd agree with that - I know *I* don't.  I consider that to be quite a
    static file, and it never even occurred to me to check it.

>In other words, we've done everything we can do.

    Hmm, well..  I'd suggest putting the .htm type into srm.conf-dist also.  I
    know I *do* check subsequent releases of this file (and the other
    .conf-dist files) for changes, and I suspect I'm not the only one.  True,
    this results in the encoding appearing in two different sources, which is
    rather inelegant - but works around this.  Of course, I simply transfer my
    *.conf files (with any noted changes) into the new server tree, too, so
    I've invisibly picked up the new mime.types file without noticing.
    Obviously, not everyone does that, or this problem wouldn't have been
    reported.

    #ken    :-)}



Mime
View raw message