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: Joris Huizer <joris_huizer@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20030628074638.74673.qmail@web20205.mail.yahoo.com>
To: www-html@w3.org


--- Brian Bober <netdemonz@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> --- Arthur Wiebe <webmaster@awiebe.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Robin Lionheart wrote:
> > 
> > >Brian Bober wrote:
> > >:: This is obviously an old issue, but couldn't
> we add
> > >:: "shortcut icon" or just "icon" and "shorcut"
> meaning the same thing (and
> > >:: working if placed together) into
> > >::
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-links ?
> > >
> > >rel="shortcut icon" defines two relationships,
> 'shortcut' and 'icon'.
> > >
> > >A definition of rel="icon" would suffice.
> > >
> > >rel="shortcut" isn't an appropriate relationship
> between a document and an
> > >icon, since "shortcut" is IE's synonym for
> "bookmark". Better to leave
> > >"shortcut" undefined and ignored.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > rel="icon" should be added to the spec. It is
> already supported by 
> > Mozilla, I don't know if IE supports it or not.
> > <Arthur/>
> > 
> 
> I think IE only supports rel="shortcut icon", but
> that ignores the true meaning
> for a space in the rel, to seperate items. 
> 
> <!ENTITY % LinkTypes "CDATA"
>     -- space-separated list of link types
>     -->
> 
> They should have done it: ShortcutIcon.
> 
> Another thing Mozilla supports is that you can use
> any kind of 16x16 image. For
> instance, Mozilla.org has: <link REL="icon"
> HREF="images/mozilla-16.png"
> TYPE="image/png">
> 
> There is merit to the way IE does it, and that is
> that you don't have to have
> that <link> in every page. The problem is it that
> you shouldn't be fetching for
> non-existant files on the server. robots.txt is bad
> enough.People shouldn't
> have to throw favicon.ico on their server to not
> have access errors in their
> logs. Another problem is that its a privacy issues.
> 
> All these issues have been beaten into the ground
> for years, and I just wonder
> why its never been placed in the standards.
> 

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... most other link types are usefull for all
browsers, except for the stylesheet, and (arguable)
Alternate
I like that icon - though... :-)


Joris

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com 
Received on Saturday, 28 June 2003 03:46:39 GMT
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | WebHeadStart.org © 2005 All Rights Reserved.