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
"application/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.
28  2888 
"Tony Carnell" <to**@fluvius.co.uk> wrote in message
news:KS******************@news-binary.blueyonder.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
"application/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
"application/x-pointplus" in the first place? What IS that content type?
"Tony Carnell" <to**@fluvius.co.uk> wrote in message
news:KS******************@news-binary.blueyonder.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
"application/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
"application/x-pointplus" in the first place? What IS that content type?
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:39:32 +0100, Tony Carnell <to**@fluvius.co.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
"application/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.
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:39:32 +0100, Tony Carnell <to**@fluvius.co.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
"application/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.
"Tony Carnell" <to**@fluvius.co.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
"Tony Carnell" <to**@fluvius.co.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
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 "application/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 "experimental": 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 "experimental" 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
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 "application/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 "experimental": 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 "experimental" 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
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk... 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 "application/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 "experimental": 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 "experimental" for that length of time.
I would think that the real issue is that it's the *wrong* content type for
serving CSS files, rather than because it's an *experimental* one.
Otherwise, what do you have to say about the fact that the default enctype
for HTML forms remains "application/x-www-form-urlencoded"?
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk... 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 "application/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 "experimental": 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 "experimental" for that length of time.
I would think that the real issue is that it's the *wrong* content type for
serving CSS files, rather than because it's an *experimental* one.
Otherwise, what do you have to say about the fact that the default enctype
for HTML forms remains "application/x-www-form-urlencoded"?
Thanks for all your help and advice.
I'll go back to the Web host now armed with this new information. :-)
Regards,
Tony.
Thanks for all your help and advice.
I'll go back to the Web host now armed with this new information. :-)
Regards,
Tony.
"Andrew Urquhart" <re***@website.in.sig> wrote in message
news:xgyec.15712$4N3.13881@newsfe1-win... 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 "application/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"
Maybe it's a miracle that ".html" is mapped to "text/html". I mean, what are
they thinking?
"Andrew Urquhart" <re***@website.in.sig> wrote in message
news:xgyec.15712$4N3.13881@newsfe1-win... 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 "application/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"
Maybe it's a miracle that ".html" is mapped to "text/html". I mean, what are
they thinking?
Tony Carnell 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
"application/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?
No, that's a f*ck you.
How badly could this alteration
impact on other websites that share the same server?
None, with Apache, where you can make a per virtual server
configuration. Like you don't all have the same document root and same
cgi-bin etc.
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.
Tell them to fix it asap, or you find a more technical competent hosting
provider.
--
John personal page: http://johnbokma.com/
Experienced Perl / Java developer available - http://castleamber.com/
Tony Carnell 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
"application/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?
No, that's a f*ck you.
How badly could this alteration
impact on other websites that share the same server?
None, with Apache, where you can make a per virtual server
configuration. Like you don't all have the same document root and same
cgi-bin etc.
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.
Tell them to fix it asap, or you find a more technical competent hosting
provider.
--
John personal page: http://johnbokma.com/
Experienced Perl / Java developer available - http://castleamber.com/
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:39:32 +0100, "Tony Carnell" <to**@fluvius.co.uk>
wrote: 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
"application/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?
If they can't serve CSS files properly they shouldn't be describing
themselves as a web hosting service.
How badly could this alteration
impact on other websites that share the same server?
Unlikely that it would have the slightest negative impact on anyone.
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.
I guess you could point people to: http://www.websitedev.de/css/validator-faq and http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2318.txt
--
Stephen Poley http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:39:32 +0100, "Tony Carnell" <to**@fluvius.co.uk>
wrote: 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
"application/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?
If they can't serve CSS files properly they shouldn't be describing
themselves as a web hosting service.
How badly could this alteration
impact on other websites that share the same server?
Unlikely that it would have the slightest negative impact on anyone.
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.
I guess you could point people to: http://www.websitedev.de/css/validator-faq and http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2318.txt
--
Stephen Poley http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Harlan Messinger wrote: I would think that the real issue is that it's the *wrong* content type
for serving CSS files, rather than because it's an *experimental* one.
Is it the wrong content type for serving Pointplus files?
--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Harlan Messinger wrote: I would think that the real issue is that it's the *wrong* content type
for serving CSS files, rather than because it's an *experimental* one.
Is it the wrong content type for serving Pointplus files?
--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
"David Dorward" <do*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c5*******************@news.demon.co.uk... Harlan Messinger wrote:
I would think that the real issue is that it's the *wrong* content type
for serving CSS files, rather than because it's an *experimental* one.
Is it the wrong content type for serving Pointplus files?
I looked up PointPlus. Do they still exist? I wonder who told them it was a
smashing idea to use the same extension as CSS files or, more puzzling, who
told the groups that build a major web server or two that it was more
important for a web server to support PointPlus than to support CSS, or even
who is hosting web sites these days who thinks his customers are more likely
to need PointPlus than CSS.
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, David Dorward wrote: Harlan Messinger wrote:
I would think that the real issue is that it's the *wrong* content type
for serving CSS files, rather than because it's an *experimental* one.
Is it the wrong content type for serving Pointplus files?
The IANA registry doesn't seem to have a registered type for them. http://www.iana.org/assignments/medi...s/application/
So presumably there's nothing better on offer than this geriatric
application/x-* that we were fighting already back in 1996 in the
early days of CSS.
By current conventions, I'd expect a "vendor-specific"
application/vnd.* to be applicable, if one was wanted.
Do they even exist any more? Attempts to access likely web domains
produce a horrible "this domain is for sale" page - and even Mozilla
seems to have allowed itself to be subverted into displaying not only
a scrolling status area but even a scrolling *title bar*, yeuch (can't
that be turned off? at least the site's attempts at popups are being
squashed by the browser!).
"David Dorward" <do*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c5*******************@news.demon.co.uk... Harlan Messinger wrote:
I would think that the real issue is that it's the *wrong* content type
for serving CSS files, rather than because it's an *experimental* one.
Is it the wrong content type for serving Pointplus files?
I looked up PointPlus. Do they still exist? I wonder who told them it was a
smashing idea to use the same extension as CSS files or, more puzzling, who
told the groups that build a major web server or two that it was more
important for a web server to support PointPlus than to support CSS, or even
who is hosting web sites these days who thinks his customers are more likely
to need PointPlus than CSS.
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, David Dorward wrote: Harlan Messinger wrote:
I would think that the real issue is that it's the *wrong* content type
for serving CSS files, rather than because it's an *experimental* one.
Is it the wrong content type for serving Pointplus files?
The IANA registry doesn't seem to have a registered type for them. http://www.iana.org/assignments/medi...s/application/
So presumably there's nothing better on offer than this geriatric
application/x-* that we were fighting already back in 1996 in the
early days of CSS.
By current conventions, I'd expect a "vendor-specific"
application/vnd.* to be applicable, if one was wanted.
Do they even exist any more? Attempts to access likely web domains
produce a horrible "this domain is for sale" page - and even Mozilla
seems to have allowed itself to be subverted into displaying not only
a scrolling status area but even a scrolling *title bar*, yeuch (can't
that be turned off? at least the site's attempts at popups are being
squashed by the browser!).
Tony Carnell 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.
</snip> All information / advice will be greatly appreciated.
you can allways put your css inline, but you will waste bandwidth that
way. My advice is: if they don't change they config file move your web
site from them.
Tony Carnell 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.
</snip> All information / advice will be greatly appreciated.
you can allways put your css inline, but you will waste bandwidth that
way. My advice is: if they don't change they config file move your web
site from them. This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Tony Carnell |
last post by:
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...
|
by: Patrick |
last post by:
I have an ASP.NET application that connects to a SQL Server database.
The SQL Server resides on a seperate development server from the IIS5.1 on
Windows XP SP2 on development PCs which host the...
|
by: Nick |
last post by:
hi, all
I just started to create my own website and I registered a new domain
from yahoo, and then I want to register a webhost plan. And how to use
this domain I registered? What I undertood...
|
by: Dean Craig |
last post by:
I'm getting ready to build my first ASP.NET/SQL Server website that will be
hosted on some web host out there (long distance, different network). The
work I've done in the past (pre-.NET) was all...
|
by: Alias |
last post by:
Hi -
I have a site that runs on a development and production server. I'd like to
programmatically change the connection string the provider uses in the
web.config file and have the provider use...
|
by: =?Utf-8?B?U3RlZmFuIEJhcmxvdw==?= |
last post by:
This has been working perfectly for months. Since we switched from ASP.NET
1.1 to 2.0, we have constant and sporadic issues with updating our
applications.
Touching the web.config works about...
|
by: Prisoner at War |
last post by:
Friends, your opinions and advice, please:
I have a very simple JavaScript image-swap which works on my end but
when uploaded to my host at http://buildit.sitesell.com/sunnyside.html
does not...
|
by: Charles Arthur |
last post by:
How do i turn on java script on a villaon, callus and itel keypad mobile phone
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
|
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing,...
| |
