We’re rewarding the question askers & reputations are being recalculated! Read more.
4 Correcting my correction
source | link

To answer your question: no, it should not pose a problem for SEO.

Why not - given that ashx has nothing to do with images, you ask? Because of the MIME type being sent with the file header.

The .png file ending is actually not what determine what the browser has to interpret, but rather the file headers of the HTTP request. The file headers sent when the browser is requesting an image file of type .png from the CMS, contain the MIME type media/png and the .ashx extension is thus, irrelevant. Same goes for HTML files - they can be called .baumr, as long as the MIME type is text/html. This can easily be set up in both Apache and IIS.

As you mentioned, theThe URL example you have used, is not too common. InAs you mentioned, in a good setup it should be descriptive, solely for SEO/Image search purposes: /images.ashx?id=picture-of-an-elf

To answer your question: no, it should not pose a problem for SEO.

Why not - given that ashx has nothing to do with images, you ask? Because of the MIME type being sent with the file header.

The .png file ending is actually not what determine what the browser has to interpret, but rather the file headers of the HTTP request. The file headers sent when the browser is requesting an image file of type .png from the CMS, contain the MIME type media/png and the .ashx extension is thus, irrelevant. Same goes for HTML files - they can be called .baumr, as long as the MIME type is text/html. This can easily be set up in both Apache and IIS.

As you mentioned, the URL example you have used, is not too common. In a good setup it should be descriptive, solely for SEO/Image search purposes: /images.ashx?id=picture-of-an-elf

To answer your question: no, it should not pose a problem for SEO.

Why not - given that ashx has nothing to do with images, you ask? Because of the MIME type being sent with the file header.

The .png file ending is actually not what determine what the browser has to interpret, but rather the file headers of the HTTP request. The file headers sent when the browser is requesting an image file of type .png from the CMS, contain the MIME type media/png and the .ashx extension is thus, irrelevant. Same goes for HTML files - they can be called .baumr, as long as the MIME type is text/html. This can easily be set up in both Apache and IIS.

The URL example you have used, is not too common. As you mentioned, in a good setup it should be descriptive, solely for SEO/Image search purposes: /images.ashx?id=picture-of-an-elf

3 Edited to match original question more
source | link

To answer your question: no, it should not pose a problem for SEO.

Why not - given that ashx has nothing to do with images, you ask? Because of the MIME type being sent with the file header.

The .png file ending is actually not what determine what the browser has to interpret, but rather the file headers of the HTTP request. The file headers sent when the browser is requesting an image file of type .png from the CMS, contain the MIME type media/png and the .ashx extension is thus, irrelevant. Same goes for HTML files - they can be called .baumr, as long as the MIME type is text/html. This can easily be set up in both Apache and IIS.

Edit:
I probably should also mentionAs you mentioned, that the URL example you have used, is not too common. In a good setup it should be descriptive, solely for SEO/Image search purposes: /images.ashx?id=picture-of-an-elf

To answer your question: no, it should not pose a problem for SEO.

Why not - given that ashx has nothing to do with images, you ask? Because of the MIME type being sent with the file header.

The .png file ending is actually not what determine what the browser has to interpret, but rather the file headers of the HTTP request. The file headers sent when the browser is requesting an image file of type .png from the CMS, contain the MIME type media/png and the .ashx extension is thus, irrelevant. Same goes for HTML files - they can be called .baumr, as long as the MIME type is text/html. This can easily be set up in both Apache and IIS.

Edit:
I probably should also mention, that the URL example you have used, is not too common. In a good setup it should be descriptive, solely for SEO/Image search purposes: /images.ashx?id=picture-of-an-elf

To answer your question: no, it should not pose a problem for SEO.

Why not - given that ashx has nothing to do with images, you ask? Because of the MIME type being sent with the file header.

The .png file ending is actually not what determine what the browser has to interpret, but rather the file headers of the HTTP request. The file headers sent when the browser is requesting an image file of type .png from the CMS, contain the MIME type media/png and the .ashx extension is thus, irrelevant. Same goes for HTML files - they can be called .baumr, as long as the MIME type is text/html. This can easily be set up in both Apache and IIS.

As you mentioned, the URL example you have used, is not too common. In a good setup it should be descriptive, solely for SEO/Image search purposes: /images.ashx?id=picture-of-an-elf

2 Formatting.
source | link

To answer your question: Nono, it should not pose a problem for SEO.

Why not - given that 'ashx'ashx has nothing to do with images, you ask? Because of the MIME typeMIME type being sent with the file header.

The ".png".png file ending is actually not what determine what the browser has to interpret, but rather the file headers of the httpHTTP request. The file headers sent when the browser is requesting an image file of type '.png'.png from the CMS, contain the MIME type media/pngMIME type media/png and the .ashx.ashx extension is thus, irrelevant. Same goes for HTML files - they can be called ".baumr".baumr, as long as the MIME typeMIME type is text/htmltext/html. This can easily be set up in both Apache and IIS.

Edit:
I probably should also mention, that the URL example you have used, is not too common. In a good setup it should be descriptive, solely for SEO/Image search purposes: /images.ashx?id=picture-of-an-elf

I hope that helps.

To answer your question: No, it should not pose a problem for SEO.

Why not - given that 'ashx' has nothing to do with images, you ask? Because of the MIME type being sent with the file header.

The ".png" file ending is actually not what determine what the browser has to interpret, but rather the file headers of the http request. The file headers sent when the browser is requesting an image file of type '.png' from the CMS, contain the MIME type media/png and the .ashx extension is thus, irrelevant. Same goes for HTML files - they can be called ".baumr", as long as the MIME type is text/html. This can easily be set up in both Apache and IIS.

Edit:
I probably should also mention, that the URL example you have used, is not too common. In a good setup it should be descriptive, solely for SEO/Image search purposes: /images.ashx?id=picture-of-an-elf

I hope that helps.

To answer your question: no, it should not pose a problem for SEO.

Why not - given that ashx has nothing to do with images, you ask? Because of the MIME type being sent with the file header.

The .png file ending is actually not what determine what the browser has to interpret, but rather the file headers of the HTTP request. The file headers sent when the browser is requesting an image file of type .png from the CMS, contain the MIME type media/png and the .ashx extension is thus, irrelevant. Same goes for HTML files - they can be called .baumr, as long as the MIME type is text/html. This can easily be set up in both Apache and IIS.

Edit:
I probably should also mention, that the URL example you have used, is not too common. In a good setup it should be descriptive, solely for SEO/Image search purposes: /images.ashx?id=picture-of-an-elf

1
source | link