lunex Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 I'm currently developing a web server library and one component that is used to serve static content off of a local disk uses a hash table to resolve generic file types to a Content-Type. It's also possible to setup this component to override this hash table, however the override table uses regular expressions, and will thusly be much less efficient than the generic table. So I want the hash table with generic content types to be very complete so as to help prevent the need to create overrides. I found a MIME reference at w3schools: http://www.w3schools.com/media/media_mimeref.asp I'm just asking for suggestions to augment that list, such as: any entries that could use a better supported content type, any additional entries that may be of use, and any entries that would never be used and could be removed. Note that this only applies to static content on disk, and the hash table only does matching to the file extension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psychoaliendog Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 application/xhtml+xml image/png I can't believe those aren't listed... The reference below is a list of MIME types supported by Microsoft Internet Information Server version 5. Nevermind, that explains it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunex Posted July 9, 2007 Author Share Posted July 9, 2007 about the IIS5 thing Yes, that would be why I'm not taking that list as being canon. Thanks for pointing out the absence of xhtml and png. I might have missed that if I would have done a copy and paste. I noticed that bas, c, and h are listed as text/plain. This seems rather odd to me. Having those as text would mean that people would read that source code in their web browser. Does anyone even distribute code in this way? Wouldn't it be easier to distribute code in an archive? Even if you, when browsing, had to obtain code as individual files, wouldn't you expect your web browser to save the file to disk(i.e. use application/octet-stream)? Or can anyone give me a valid reason to have source code files reported as text/plain? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.