https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55431
--- Comment #2 from g <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Christoph Anton Mitterer from comment #1) > First .gz shouldn't be a Content-Type, but a Content-Encoding... check your > mod_mime config ;) > Hrm, yes I guess I suppose so. However, it appears that "application/gzip" or "application/x-gzip" is the actual mimetype for gzipped files. A quick google search turned up this: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-levine-application-gzip-03.html and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gzip although I realize one source is a draft and the other is wikipedia... But this was set automatically on Amazon Linux it seems. That aside, the whole point is that it would make the most sense that the Content-Type listed in the type-map takes priority, otherwise, what is the point in listing it anyways? Since I am explicitly listing a mime-type it would seem that my knowledge of whats in the file should have greater weight than a extension mapping. > > 2nd, isn't this similar/the same than bug #41130? Wow, yes. From 2006... I guess that means I am overlooking something obvious because nobody has been interested in fixing it for 7 years. Is the recommended solution here not to have file extensions on the files a type map points to or something? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
