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

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

From: Brian Bober <netdemonz@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 06:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20030628131427.38147.qmail@web11706.mail.yahoo.com>
To: www-html@w3.org

Perhaps Lynx could offer a key you could press, and it would show you the icon
in 16x16 ascii art ;-)

--- Joris Huizer <joris_huizer@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> --- 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
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Received on Saturday, 28 June 2003 09:14:28 GMT

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