W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > June 2003

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:55 GMT