By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,394 Members | 1,912 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,394 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Webhost won't change server config

P: n/a
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.
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
28 Replies


P: n/a

"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?

Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a

"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?

Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
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.
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
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.
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
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"
--
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
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
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"
--
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
Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
"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
Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
"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
Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
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
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
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
Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a

"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"?
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a

"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"?
Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
Thanks for all your help and advice.

I'll go back to the Web host now armed with this new information. :-)

Regards,
Tony.
Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
Thanks for all your help and advice.

I'll go back to the Web host now armed with this new information. :-)

Regards,
Tony.
Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a

"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?

Jul 20 '05 #16

P: n/a

"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?

Jul 20 '05 #17

P: n/a
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/
Jul 20 '05 #18

P: n/a
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/
Jul 20 '05 #19

P: n/a
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/
Jul 20 '05 #20

P: n/a
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/
Jul 20 '05 #21

P: n/a
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/>
Jul 20 '05 #22

P: n/a
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/>
Jul 20 '05 #23

P: n/a

"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.

Jul 20 '05 #24

P: n/a
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!).

Jul 20 '05 #25

P: n/a

"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.

Jul 20 '05 #26

P: n/a
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!).

Jul 20 '05 #27

P: n/a
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.
Jul 20 '05 #28

P: n/a
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.
Jul 20 '05 #29

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.