Webhost won't change server config

[Tony Carnell]

Hi all,

A couple of days ago I posted a message to this newsgroup relating to the
fact that a design I'd worked on for a client wasn't displaying its
stylesheet in Mozilla browsers.
I was advised by a couple of other newsgroup members far more knowledgeable
that I on this subject that I should contact the Web host and ask them to
alter the way the server was sending the CSS from content type
"applicatio n/x-pointplus" to "text/css" instead.

This I duly did but they have come back to me saying:
"We do not make any changes to config on shared servers. Your site is shared
with lots of others, and if we make changes this could impact on them".

Does this sound like a reasonable response? How badly could this alteration
impact on other websites that share the same server?
I could tell the client to go for a dedicated server, but that would be
costly.
I could also tell the client to change Web hosts, but I feel I need more
information before doing this, and if it's possible to resolve this matter
with the current host it would make life a lot easier all round.

All information / advice will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Tony.

[Harlan Messinger]

"Tony Carnell" <to**@fluvius.c o.uk> wrote in message
news:KS******** **********@news-binary.blueyond er.co.uk...

Hi all,

A couple of days ago I posted a message to this newsgroup relating to the
fact that a design I'd worked on for a client wasn't displaying its
stylesheet in Mozilla browsers.
I was advised by a couple of other newsgroup members far more knowledgeable that I on this subject that I should contact the Web host and ask them to
alter the way the server was sending the CSS from content type
"applicatio n/x-pointplus" to "text/css" instead.

This I duly did but they have come back to me saying:
"We do not make any changes to config on shared servers. Your site is shared with lots of others, and if we make changes this could impact on them".

I'm curious how many web sites require that files with the extension ".css"
be served as any content type OTHER than "text/css". How did it get to be
"applicatio n/x-pointplus" in the first place? What IS that content type?

[Harlan Messinger]

"Tony Carnell" <to**@fluvius.c o.uk> wrote in message
news:KS******** **********@news-binary.blueyond er.co.uk...

Hi all,

A couple of days ago I posted a message to this newsgroup relating to the
fact that a design I'd worked on for a client wasn't displaying its
stylesheet in Mozilla browsers.
I was advised by a couple of other newsgroup members far more knowledgeable that I on this subject that I should contact the Web host and ask them to
alter the way the server was sending the CSS from content type
"applicatio n/x-pointplus" to "text/css" instead.

This I duly did but they have come back to me saying:
"We do not make any changes to config on shared servers. Your site is shared with lots of others, and if we make changes this could impact on them".

I'm curious how many web sites require that files with the extension ".css"
be served as any content type OTHER than "text/css". How did it get to be
"applicatio n/x-pointplus" in the first place? What IS that content type?

[Neal]

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:39:32 +0100, Tony Carnell <to**@fluvius.c o.uk>
wrote:

Hi all,

A couple of days ago I posted a message to this newsgroup relating to the
fact that a design I'd worked on for a client wasn't displaying its
stylesheet in Mozilla browsers.
I was advised by a couple of other newsgroup members far more
knowledgeable
that I on this subject that I should contact the Web host and ask them to
alter the way the server was sending the CSS from content type
"applicatio n/x-pointplus" to "text/css" instead.
Apache server? If so, simply use a .htaccess file.
This I duly did but they have come back to me saying:
"We do not make any changes to config on shared servers. Your site is
shared
with lots of others, and if we make changes this could impact on them".

Unreasonable. By far text/css is more universally appropriate.

Explain to them again, noting that your client *really needs to* serve
..css as text/css. If still no help, dump them in favor of a host using
Apache, where you can set an .htaccess and forget about it.

[Neal]

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:39:32 +0100, Tony Carnell <to**@fluvius.c o.uk>
wrote:

Hi all,

A couple of days ago I posted a message to this newsgroup relating to the
fact that a design I'd worked on for a client wasn't displaying its
stylesheet in Mozilla browsers.
I was advised by a couple of other newsgroup members far more
knowledgeable
that I on this subject that I should contact the Web host and ask them to
alter the way the server was sending the CSS from content type
"applicatio n/x-pointplus" to "text/css" instead.
Apache server? If so, simply use a .htaccess file.
This I duly did but they have come back to me saying:
"We do not make any changes to config on shared servers. Your site is
shared
with lots of others, and if we make changes this could impact on them".

Unreasonable. By far text/css is more universally appropriate.

Explain to them again, noting that your client *really needs to* serve
..css as text/css. If still no help, dump them in favor of a host using
Apache, where you can set an .htaccess and forget about it.

[Andrew Urquhart]

Harlan Messinger wrote:

I'm curious how many web sites require that files with the extension
".css" be served as any content type OTHER than "text/css". How did
it get to be "applicatio n/x-pointplus" in the first place? What IS
that content type?

It's quite common apparently:
http://www.google.com/search?q=appli...ntplus+problem

http://sunsolve.sun.com/pub-cgi/retr...sunone%2F3755:
"The file type .css is not mapped to cascading style sheets in the
default mime types included with Enterprise Server"
--
Andrew Urquhart
- FAQ: www.css.nu/faq/ciwas-aFAQ.html
- Archive: www.tinyurl.com/ysjbm
- Contact: www.andrewu.co.uk/contact/
- Employ me: Front/middle tier ASP developer with WAI & web standards

[Andrew Urquhart]

Harlan Messinger wrote:

I'm curious how many web sites require that files with the extension
".css" be served as any content type OTHER than "text/css". How did
it get to be "applicatio n/x-pointplus" in the first place? What IS
that content type?

It's quite common apparently:
http://www.google.com/search?q=appli...ntplus+problem

http://sunsolve.sun.com/pub-cgi/retr...sunone%2F3755:
"The file type .css is not mapped to cascading style sheets in the
default mime types included with Enterprise Server"
--
Andrew Urquhart
- FAQ: www.css.nu/faq/ciwas-aFAQ.html
- Archive: www.tinyurl.com/ysjbm
- Contact: www.andrewu.co.uk/contact/
- Employ me: Front/middle tier ASP developer with WAI & web standards

[Spartanicus]

"Tony Carnell" <to**@fluvius.c o.uk> wrote:

"We do not make any changes to config on shared servers. Your site is shared
with lots of others, and if we make changes this could impact on them".

Does this sound like a reasonable response?

No, grossly incompetent bunch of idiots.

Change host.

--
Spartanicus

[Spartanicus]

"Tony Carnell" <to**@fluvius.c o.uk> wrote:

"We do not make any changes to config on shared servers. Your site is shared
with lots of others, and if we make changes this could impact on them".

Does this sound like a reasonable response?

No, grossly incompetent bunch of idiots.

Change host.

--
Spartanicus

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Tony Carnell wrote:

that I on this subject that I should contact the Web host and ask
them to alter the way the server was sending the CSS from content
type "applicatio n/x-pointplus" to "text/css" instead.

This I duly did but they have come back to me saying:
"We do not make any changes to config on shared servers. Your site is shared
with lots of others, and if we make changes this could impact on them".

Does this sound like a reasonable response?
As a general principle - yes, naturally they should not make
arbitrary changes for one customer when it's going to have an
impact on their other customers.

In this particular case - emphatically no. The x- prefix in that
content-type shows that it's "experiment al": this problem was noticed
and solved in 1996, to my knowledge, on servers where it was being
spotted, and there's no way that a content-type had any privileged
rights if it remained "experiment al" for that length of time.
How badly could this alteration
impact on other websites that share the same server?
I'd suggest a read of
http://www.google.com/search?q=point...e+content-type

Personally I couldn't be bothered to research this for myself again
now, as the answer seems clear enough to me.
I could tell the client to go for a dedicated server, but that would be
costly.
If they don't give an individual content provider the ability to
control their own content-type headers, SHOUT LOUDLY: this is
something that they NEED for doing their job properly.

(Apologies to Mark Nottingham for plagiarising his theme ;-)

In Apache this would mean they'd need to enable the relevant feature
in the .htaccess file, and the content provider would then supply an
AddType directive in their (highest-level) .htaccess file. Other
servers, of course, may use different configuration mechanisms.
All information / advice will be greatly appreciated.

I think you've been given the standard knee-jerk level 1 user support
response. I'd say go back to them and say their answer is
unsatisfactory, and ask to speak to the next level of technical
support. Somebody there needs to recognise that they're supporting
some way-obsolete experimental-only content type, to the detriment of
one which -has- been properly registered with the authorities (IANA).

good luck