ISO CD Image file is being sent as HTML

Discussion in 'HTML' started by jstorta, Mar 17, 2006.

  1. jstorta

    jstorta Guest

    I have the following link in a document

    <A href="mycdimage.iso">Test Image</A>

    When I click on it in a browser it opens it as though it were and HTML
    file and starts putting random characters in the window.

    If I right click and select Save Target As, it allows me to save it but
    says the file type is HTML and tacks on an htm extension to it.

    I have gone to other sites and can download iso images without any
    problems so I've determined that the problem is on my web server not
    the browser.

    The web server uses Apache Tomcat and the document is a java server
    page. This link is just straight HTML code though.


    Is there something I am supposed to include in the document or anchor
    tag to indicate that this is a binary file that should be saved when
    clicked or does this sound like a tomcat/JSP problem?

    Thanks,
     
    jstorta, Mar 17, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. jstorta

    Switchy Guest

    Do you use Mozzila as your web browser?


    "jstorta" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I have the following link in a document
    >
    > <A href="mycdimage.iso">Test Image</A>
    >
    > When I click on it in a browser it opens it as though it were and HTML
    > file and starts putting random characters in the window.
    >
    > If I right click and select Save Target As, it allows me to save it but
    > says the file type is HTML and tacks on an htm extension to it.
    >
    > I have gone to other sites and can download iso images without any
    > problems so I've determined that the problem is on my web server not
    > the browser.
    >
    > The web server uses Apache Tomcat and the document is a java server
    > page. This link is just straight HTML code though.
    >
    >
    > Is there something I am supposed to include in the document or anchor
    > tag to indicate that this is a binary file that should be saved when
    > clicked or does this sound like a tomcat/JSP problem?
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
     
    Switchy, Mar 17, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jstorta

    Jim Higson Guest

    jstorta wrote:

    > I have the following link in a document
    >
    > <A href="mycdimage.iso">Test Image</A>
    >
    > When I click on it in a browser it opens it as though it were and HTML
    > file and starts putting random characters in the window.
    >
    > If I right click and select Save Target As, it allows me to save it but
    > says the file type is HTML and tacks on an htm extension to it.
    >
    > I have gone to other sites and can download iso images without any
    > problems so I've determined that the problem is on my web server not
    > the browser.
    >
    > The web server uses Apache Tomcat and the document is a java server
    > page. This link is just straight HTML code though.
    >
    >
    > Is there something I am supposed to include in the document or anchor
    > tag to indicate that this is a binary file that should be saved when
    > clicked or does this sound like a tomcat/JSP problem?


    You need to configure the server to send out the right Content-Type header
    with the ISO. This is how the browser knows what type the file is.

    --
    Jim
     
    Jim Higson, Mar 17, 2006
    #3
  4. Switchy wrote:
    > Do you use Mozzila as your web browser?
    >


    Don't top post please.

    A: Not according to his header

    X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
    ..NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)


    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Mar 17, 2006
    #4
  5. jstorta

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, jstorta quothed:

    > I have the following link in a document
    >
    > <A href="mycdimage.iso">Test Image</A>
    >
    > When I click on it in a browser it opens it as though it were and HTML
    > file and starts putting random characters in the window.
    >
    > If I right click and select Save Target As, it allows me to save it but
    > says the file type is HTML and tacks on an htm extension to it.
    >
    > I have gone to other sites and can download iso images without any
    > problems so I've determined that the problem is on my web server not
    > the browser.
    >
    > The web server uses Apache Tomcat and the document is a java server
    > page. This link is just straight HTML code though.
    >
    >
    > Is there something I am supposed to include in the document or anchor
    > tag to indicate that this is a binary file that should be saved when
    > clicked or does this sound like a tomcat/JSP problem?


    It sounds like the server is not exercising the right isometrics.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
     
    Neredbojias, Mar 17, 2006
    #5
  6. jstorta

    Switchy Guest

    The reason that I asked you if you use Mozzila is:

    IE can recognize a lot of extensions,
    otherwise, with mozzila you have to contact your provider
    who can define the extension on server.

    That happens to me with MSI (Microsoft Installer) extension.

    DO not use Mozzila is just a game for kids.


    "jstorta" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I have the following link in a document
    >
    > <A href="mycdimage.iso">Test Image</A>
    >
    > When I click on it in a browser it opens it as though it were and HTML
    > file and starts putting random characters in the window.
    >
    > If I right click and select Save Target As, it allows me to save it but
    > says the file type is HTML and tacks on an htm extension to it.
    >
    > I have gone to other sites and can download iso images without any
    > problems so I've determined that the problem is on my web server not
    > the browser.
    >
    > The web server uses Apache Tomcat and the document is a java server
    > page. This link is just straight HTML code though.
    >
    >
    > Is there something I am supposed to include in the document or anchor
    > tag to indicate that this is a binary file that should be saved when
    > clicked or does this sound like a tomcat/JSP problem?
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
     
    Switchy, Mar 18, 2006
    #6
  7. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Switchy blurted out atop a fullquote (and on
    usenet we already know what that's likely to indicate), in response to
    "jstorta":

    > The reason that I asked you if you use Mozzila is:
    >
    > IE can recognize a lot of extensions,


    In clear text: MSIE violates a mandatory requirement of the HTTP
    protocol.

    > otherwise, with mozzila you have to contact your provider
    > who can define the extension on server.


    What you're thinking of is true for all WWW-compatible browsers, by
    definition. Not only Mozilla.

    > That happens to me with MSI (Microsoft Installer) extension.


    Browsers usually provide a way for the recipient to download content
    from a link, even if the sender gets the type wrong. But the *user*
    has to ask for it deliberately (e.g shift/click). The HTTP protocol
    prohibits browsers from unilaterally overriding the server-provided
    content type.

    > DO not use Mozzila is just a game for kids.


    You'd have to draw your own conclusions about whether to take advice
    from someone who can't even spell Mozilla, let alone caring to follow
    netiquette, and can't seem to recognise the difference between a
    WWW-compatible browser and an operating system component which, all
    too frequently, is too clever for the security of its users.

    "Switchy" doesn't even know what principles MSIE uses in violating
    this mandatory requirement. Looking at the filename extension is
    pretty much its *last* resort when guessing at content type - as MS's
    own documentation would have told him.

    cheers
     
    Alan J. Flavell, Mar 18, 2006
    #7
  8. jstorta

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, Switchy quothed:

    > DO not use Mozzila is just a game for kids.


    Oh, the Humanities!

    Are you serious? Firefox is the best browser out there. Come out from
    under that rock and smell the new millennium air!

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
     
    Neredbojias, Mar 18, 2006
    #8
  9. jstorta

    Switchy Guest

    Yes,

    where is the basic alt="text" option?


    "Neredbojias" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > With neither quill nor qualm, Switchy quothed:
    >
    > > DO not use Mozzila is just a game for kids.

    >
    > Oh, the Humanities!
    >
    > Are you serious? Firefox is the best browser out there. Come out from
    > under that rock and smell the new millennium air!
    >
    > --
    > Neredbojias
    > Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
     
    Switchy, Mar 19, 2006
    #9
  10. Switchy wrote:

    Stop top posting please.

    > Yes,
    >
    > where is the basic alt="text" option?
    >


    What, do your mean showing the 'tool tip' with an image's alt text? If
    so the reason is because it is not supposed to. The alt text if for when
    the image is unavailable. If you want the tool tip use the title
    attribute. Does have to be on an image either.

    <h1 title="Heading tooltip!">Test Tooltip</h1>



    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Mar 19, 2006
    #10
  11. jstorta

    Jim Higson Guest

    Switchy wrote:

    > The reason that I asked you if you use Mozzila is:
    >
    > IE can recognize a lot of extensions,


    Just a note, but file extensions in the URL aren't really a very good way to
    decide what type the content is. When Tim Berners-Lee designed the WW, he
    decided to use an HTTP header ("Content-Type") instead.

    Off the top of my head, there are a few reasons why putting too much faith
    in extentions isn't a very good idea on the WWW:

    1) A lot of servers like scripts to have a certain extension, but this
    rarely indicates the type of content being served. For example, a URL that
    ends in ".php" could serve an (X)HTML page, a CSS sheet, a PNG image, plain
    text, an SVG image... anything! This isn't just an academic thing, for
    example check out the page on a site I run:

    http://surfcore.co.uk/node/293

    All the URLs for user images except the first one end in ".php" because they
    are scaled as requested.

    2) HTTP has something called content negotiation. (the Apache implementation
    of this is called multiviews). Using content negotiation,
    http://example.com/images/me might return a SVG to very modern browsers, a
    PNG to recent-ish onces and a GIF to very old ones. The browser should tell
    the server what it supports when it requests the image.

    3) It is in many cases a bad idea to have the file extentions in URLs since
    it is an implementation detail and not of interest to most users. Serving
    ISO images is a bit of an exception to this because the user *is*
    interested in the type of the file.

    4) Which extention is for which file type are only really a convention,
    whereas MIME types are (mostly) formally registered.

    5) Only really MS Windows uses file extentions to decide what type a file
    is. Unix typically looks at the contents of the file itself to decide.

    > otherwise, with mozzila you have to contact your provider
    > who can define the extension on server.


    Not necessarilty. This can be done in htaccess. The server is at fault
    though, it is telling the browser that the content is "text/html" and the
    browser is believing it. It might be frustrating in the short term, but in
    the long run I find web development less frustrating if the browser
    believes what the server tells it instead of trying to second guess it all
    the time.

    Hope this is of interest,
    Jim

    > That happens to me with MSI (Microsoft Installer) extension.
    >
    > DO not use Mozzila is just a game for kids.
     
    Jim Higson, Mar 19, 2006
    #11
  12. On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Jim Higson wrote:

    > Just a note, but file extensions in the URL aren't really a very
    > good way to decide what type the content is. When Tim Berners-Lee
    > designed the WW, he decided to use an HTTP header ("Content-Type")
    > instead.


    Right; but in the interests of accuracy, RFC2616 is an IETF
    standards-track RFC - which means it behoves all Internet users to
    observe its requirements, no matter what their opinion of TimBL and
    the W3C might happen to be.

    [good points snipped...]

    > 5) Only really MS Windows uses file extentions to decide what type a
    > file is.


    MS Windows does, it's true, but MSIE generally doesn't, as their
    documentation shows:
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/networking/moniker/overview/appendix_a.asp

    In trying to guess what the content really might be, the filename
    extension is pretty much its last resort.

    > Unix typically looks at the contents of the file itself to decide.


    Well, yes; but a very common way to use Apache is with the MIME
    content-type determined by the filename extension *at the server*
    (which might or might not appear in the associated URL, as you say).

    There isn't any HTTP content type which clearly means "the receiving
    OS should guess", so the issue of how a unix-type operating system
    might guess is mostly off-topic. If *and only if* (in the words of
    RFC2616) the sender has omitted to provide a Content-type header, the
    client agent is permitted to guess - but this is already a dubious
    situation, since RFC2616 told the sender that they SHOULD provide an
    appropriate Content-type header.

    I hadn't seen an HTTP 200 response without a Content-type header for
    many years. I *did* see one quite recently - and, guess what, the
    server that sent it said that it was IIS. Yet another case of
    software from Galactic HQ spitting in the face of the Internet
    specifications.

    The only remaining situation where it's doubtful what RFC2616 says
    should happen, is application/octet-stream. Some say that this can
    only be saved to file, since it can't be unambiguously associated with
    any viewer or application at the client side. Others say that the
    wording of RFC2616 doesn't actually disallow the client agent trying
    to guess what it is. (I'm fairly agnostic on this point, but this
    isn't about me.)

    > Not necessarilty. This can be done in htaccess. The server is at
    > fault though, it is telling the browser that the content is
    > "text/html" and the browser is believing it.


    RFC2616 leaves the browser only two choices: either treat it as what
    it claims to be, or reject it. In practical terms, "reject it" could
    mean appealing to the user and getting their informed consent to
    proceed on the basis of what the stuff appears to be, rather than what
    the sender claims it to be. The majority of WWW users would,
    admittedly, be in no position to take a proper decision on that
    "informed" consent; but if all client agents (including the operating
    system component that thinks it's a web browser) were behaving in
    accordance with RFC2616, then this situation simply wouldn't arise,
    since everyone providing content would see the problem as soon as they
    tried to access it themselves, and would correct it forthwith.
     
    Alan J. Flavell, Mar 19, 2006
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Franck DARRAS
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    643
    Jim Higson
    Aug 23, 2004
  2. Alexei Polkhanov
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    2,465
  3. Replies:
    13
    Views:
    6,433
    Dave Thompson
    Dec 20, 2004
  4. ISO C89 and ISO C99

    , Dec 10, 2004, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    546
    Dave Thompson
    Dec 20, 2004
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    350
Loading...

Share This Page