Welcome to WebHeadStart.org

Web Technologies

Sponsored By

WebHeadStart.org is currently in beta.
Please pardon our appearance as we work to provide you with the most comprehensive reference on today's web technologies.

Interested in advertising on WebHeadStart? Become an advertising partner today!

[WWW-HTML Mailing List Archive Home] [Messages By Thread] [Messages By Date]

RE: favicon.ico vs <link> - add link type for shortcut icon?

From: Brian Bober <netdemonz@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:32:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20030630173216.8946.qmail@web11705.mail.yahoo.com>
To: Chris Moschini <Chris.Moschini@amdocs.com>, "'Jens Meiert'" <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
Cc: www-html@w3.org, www-style@w3.org

When I really think about it, I have to agree wholeheartedly it should be in
CSS and not in <link>. This could be put in the CSS standard, and if browsers
also want to support the <link> method proprietarily for people used to it,
that's their choice. There are a lot more advantages for putting it in CSS.
Another one that wasn't mentioned is that you could change the icon dynamically
on a fully loaded page (hopefully not being abused to create animated icons).

--- Chris Moschini <Chris.Moschini@amdocs.com> wrote:
> Well, on one hand, I do like that title attribute. It's sensible relative to
> the meaning of the tag. However, I feel the icon makes sense in CSS because:
> 
> 1) It *is* strictly presentation; the icon has no "content," no added meaning
> to the user. It simply offers a branding opportunity. Images meanwhile *can*
> have content, and therefore may or may not make sense to be called from CSS.
> 
> 2) Including it in CSS would resolve the issue of having to include a link
> rel="icon" tag on every page on a site. The CSS reference would resolve it as
> any site-wide CSS would reference the icon. Alternately, section-wide CSS may
> reference the icon, meaning different sections of a site could have different
> icons (useful and sensible).
> 
> All "favicon" purpose does seem to point to CSS's intent... .
> 
> -Chris "SoopahMan" Moschini
> http://hiveminds.info/ 
> http://soopahman.com/ 
> 
> (ignore attachment)
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jens Meiert [mailto:jens.meiert@erde3.com]
> 
> > perhaps reference to
> > "favicon" belongs in a site's CSS instead
> 
> Why!? Otherwise please be consequent and stop all the object element
> discussion and simply put all images into your CSS...!
> 
> I think the 'favicon' topic is very special, and I neither appreciate a
> extra link element use nor a CSS integration for it, that's both inelegantly
> for
> me. Either define a common place and name for it (as exists and often works
> as 'favicon.ico' in the server root) and leave it from markup, or integrate
> it
> e.g. as a <title /> attribute like
> 
>      <title icon="./foo/bar.gif" />
> 
> 
> All the best,
>  Jens.>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The information contained in this message is proprietary of Amdocs,
> 
> protected from disclosure, and may be privileged.
> 
> The information is intended to be conveyed only to the designated
> recipient(s)
> 
> of the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
> 
> you are hereby notified that any dissemination, use, distribution or copying
> of 
> 
> this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. 
> 
> If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
> immediately
> 
> by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com 
Received on Monday, 30 June 2003 13:32:17 GMT
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | WebHeadStart.org © 2005 All Rights Reserved.