问题
I didn't see any difference with or without this head information yet.
回答1:
Define "necessary".
It is necessary if you want the browser to know what the type of the file is. PHP automatically sets the Content-Type header to text/html if you don't override it so your browser is treating it as an HTML file that doesn't contain any HTML. If your output contained any HTML you'd see very different outcomes. If you were to send:
<b><i>test</i></b>
a Content-Type: text/html would output:
test
whereas Content-Type: text/plain would output:
<b><i>test</i></b>
TLDR Version: If you really are only outputing text then it doesn't really matter, but it IS wrong.
回答2:
PHP uses Content-Type "text/html" as default - which is pretty similar to "text/plain" - and this explains why you don't see any differences. text/plain is necessary if you want to output text as is (including <>-symbols). Examples:
header("Content-Type: text/plain");
echo "<b>hello world</b>";
// Output: <b>hello world</b>
header("Content-Type: text/html");
echo "<b>hello world</b>";
// Output: hello world
回答3:
It is very important that you tell the browser what type of data you are sending it. The difference should be obvious. Try viewing the output of the following PHP file in your browser;
<?php
header('Content-Type:text/html');
?>
<p>Hello</p>
You will see:
hello
(note that you will get the same results if you miss off the header line in this case - text/html is php's default)
Change it to text/plain
<?php
header('Content-Type:text/plain');
?>
<p>Hello</p>
You will see:
<p>Hello</p>
Why does this matter? If you have something like the following in a php script that, for example, is used by an ajax request:
<?php
header('Content-Type:text/html');
print "Your name is " . $_GET['name']
Someone can put a link to a URL like http://example.com/test.php?name=%3Cscript%20src=%22http://example.com/eviljs%22%3E%3C/script%3E on their site, and if a user clicks it, they have exposed all their information on your site to whoever put up the link. If you serve the file as text/plain, you are safe.
Note that this is a silly example, it's more likely that the bad script tag would be added by the attacker to a field in the database or by using a form submission.
回答4:
Setting the Content-Type header will affect how a web browser treats your content. When most mainstream web browsers encounter a Content-Type of text/plain, they'll render the raw text source in the browser window (as opposed to the source rendered at HTML). It's the difference between seeing
<b>foo</b>
or
foo
Additionally, when using the XMLHttpRequest object, your Content-Type header will affect how the browser serializes the returned results. Prior to the takeover of AJAX frameworks like jQuery and Prototype, a common problem with AJAX responses was a Content-Type set to text/html instead of text/xml. Similar problems would likely occur if the Content-Type was text/plain.
回答5:
Say you want to answer a request with a 204: No Content HTTP status. Firefox will complain with "no element found" in the console of the browser. This is a bug in Firefox that has been reported, but never fixed, for several years. By sending a "Content-type: text/plain" header, you can prevent this error in Firefox.
回答6:
no its not like that,here is Example for the support of my answer ---->the clear difference is visible ,when you go for HTTP Compression,which allows you to compress the data while travelling from Server to Client and the Type of this data automatically becomes as "gzip" which Tells browser that bowser got a zipped data and it has to upzip it,this is a example where Type really matters at Bowser.
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1414325/is-headercontent-typetext-plain-necessary-at-all