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: Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:35:59 +0200 (MEST)
To: Chris Moschini <Chris.Moschini@amdocs.com>
Cc: www-html@w3.org, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <2820.1056990959@www5.gmx.net>

> 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.



> > Well, I think the main reason might be, this link type
> only has something to do with graphical browsers;
> text-only browsers, or speech browsers - will simply
> ignore it...
> 
> Although it's only really useful for graphical browsers, that doesn't mean
> it's useless.
> 
> That is interesting you mention CSS however; perhaps reference to
> "favicon" belongs in a site's CSS instead. Adding this to the standard
would at
> least ensure Mozilla and Opera would follow quickly, though IE it appears
is
> set in stone... .
> 
> If a link tag is used, I agree "shortcut icon" is entirely innappropriate.
> It refers specifically to the Windows Desktop, and violates standards
> regarding the rel attribute. "icon" is the proper value. I also agree that
> Mozilla's acceptance of any image type (not just the .ico format) is
> appropriate.
> 
> The question lies in, I suppose:
> 
> Should the standard be one that formally agrees with and expands what's
> already there (that is, link rel="icon", any image format), or should it
> avoid such an obscure syntax and be added to the most sensible place for
it,
> CSS, even though it means it will never see light of day on authors' sites
> for at least several years to come?
> 
> -Chris "SoopahMan" Moschini
> http://hiveminds.info/ 
> http://soopahman.com/ 
> 
> (ignore attachment)


-- 
Jens Meiert

Steubenstr. 28
D-26123 Oldenburg

Mobil +49 (0)175 78 4146 5
Telefon +49 (0)441 99 86 147
Telefax +49 (0)89 1488 2325 91

Mail <jens@meiert.com>
Internet <http://meiert.com >
Received on Monday, 30 June 2003 12:36:21 GMT
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | WebHeadStart.org © 2005 All Rights Reserved.