At present, we just use the first available extension format for each Content-Type header. This may cause undesirable file extensions to be resolved.
For example if .htm and .html were configured on the host system as acceptable extensions for a text/html Content-Type header, the final resolved extension would be .htm, and will never be .html. This feature serves to allow "preferable" extensions.
Why not force certain extensions for certain Content-Type headers? Each system has differing configured file extensions, thus forcing any certain one could cause issues.
Rationale
At present, we just use the first available extension format for each
Content-Typeheader. This may cause undesirable file extensions to be resolved.For example if
.htmand.htmlwere configured on the host system as acceptable extensions for atext/htmlContent-Type header, the final resolved extension would be.htm, and will never be.html. This feature serves to allow "preferable" extensions.Why not force certain extensions for certain Content-Type headers? Each system has differing configured file extensions, thus forcing any certain one could cause issues.