What if we allowed it only as CSS for the title element? Then someone could do:

<title style="title-icon: blah.png" />

is this allowed by syntax?

or alternatively in a stylesheet:

title { title-icon: blah.png }

When you are inside a frame or iframe (since this would apply to HTML too), the
title icon of that frame, if present, could override the container's.

--- Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com> wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> But I question the general image use. If you really analyze it, they are
> surely 99% of non-content nature. You are right saying they '*can* have
> content', but mostly they do not (and so you 'can' use CSS for them). And as
> I said
> before, the 'favicon.ico' is a special topic, I think.
> 
> > 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).
> 
> Yes, but that's 'spongy', isn't it? Instead of using <link /> for both fav
> icon and CSS, you use a single <link /> element (and imagine you abstain from
> CSS use, you still have to use it for your fav icon).
> 
> Nevertheless I feel better with the <title /> attribute suggestion. And
> maybe you can even use some other format for displaying it (like I spelled it
> wrong in the example by using 'bar.gif' instead of 'bar.ico').
> 
> 
>  Jens.
> 
> 
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 >
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com