Internet Explorer wont recognise uppercase file extensions (Tomcat application)

I have a Ubuntu server running apache webserver and Tomcat; also Win7 client + IE11, FF, Chrome:

I understand that, as Ubuntu (Linux) differs upper from lowercase, it does make a diffence from default.jpg to default.JPG ..

Now in our Tomcat application thumbnails of *.JPG do not show up, but only in Internet Explorer (11).
Chrome and Firefox seem to not care very much - no problems.

So I guess I have to add the uppercase MIME types to the web.xml - but I would like to know, why/how IE handles MIME Types differently to other browsers?
Of couse, it is strongly entagled with Windows OS which itself also does not differ upper and lowercase.. So is the root cause of this, how the mime types are defined (in the registry?) and processed by different browsers (Chrome/FF handling MIME types on their own)?

Can somebody confirm this and/or give a more detailed reason?
SystemadministrationAsked:
Who is Participating?

[Webinar] Streamline your web hosting managementRegister Today

x
 
SystemadministrationConnect With a Mentor Author Commented:
That's hair-splitting now :)
Case-sensitve handling of file extensions causing running into indefined MIME types..
--
I noticed another thing, which might make a difference - you couldn't see on the first screenshot:
The image URL is like:
.../default.jpg?version=1471527238374&name=uppercase.JPG
resp.
.../default.jpg?version=1471527238374&name=lowercase.jpg
--
Maybe Chrome and FF interpret the MIME type from "default.jpg" => ignoring the paramters and following extensions;
While IE takes "the last file extension it gets" => causing the difference of upper and lowercase...(?)
0
 
Dave BaldwinFixer of ProblemsCommented:
That is very odd.  I have never had that happen.  The web server is the thing that recognizes the file names, the browser just sends them in the request.  I don't think there are 'uppercase MIME' types.  Can you give some sample files links that are loaded differently by IE and the other browsers?
0
 
SystemadministrationConnect With a Mentor Author Commented:
Thanks for you comment.
Well, as Linux machines (= our webb/app server) are case sensitive. So are the MIME types:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9575756/servlet-for-file-upload-contenttype-returning-none-when-file-extension-in-ca
---
I can give more than an example, this is the network traffic logged by IE, see attachment.
---
So to fix this I would need to define uppercase MIME types in my tomcat web.xml.
But I would like to know, why IE handles this differently from Chrome/FF.
If I was very mean I would say: "Once again IE seems more stupid than any other browser"..
2016-08-19-09_43_19-Clipboard-johnen.jpg
0
KuppingerCole Reviews AlgoSec in Executive Report

Leading analyst firm, KuppingerCole reviews AlgoSec's Security Policy Management Solution, and the security challenges faced by companies today in their Executive View report.

 
Dave BaldwinFixer of ProblemsCommented:
Several things.  You are having a problem with file extensions, not MIME types.  They are not the same.  Here is the 'official' list of MIME types:  https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml

If the 'mime-mapping' works for you, use it.  But that is an artifact of Tomcat and/or JAVA.
<mime-mapping>
    <extension>JPG</extension>
    <mime-type>image/jpeg</mime-type>
</mime-mapping>

Open in new window


There is no reason for IE and Firefox to be acting differently that I know of.  On my Linux Apache sites, they don't act differently.  Maybe if you capture the headers from both you will see a difference.
0
 
Dave BaldwinFixer of ProblemsCommented:
All that is possible.  I think the difference is Tomcat and whatever goes on there.  I don't have any experience with Tomcat.  My experience with hundreds of pages on Linux and Apache have never shown IE to have this problem.  But I also have never used URLs like that.  The only time I see URLs like that are when the first file name is actually a program and not an image.
0
 
SystemadministrationAuthor Commented:
Well I guess if there is noone else with a comparable scenario responding, I will stick with my assumptions, even though it's slightly unsatisfying..
0
 
SystemadministrationAuthor Commented:
Other comments did not bring in further/additional information.
0
All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.