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

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

From: Joris Huizer <joris_huizer@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 02:30:36 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20030629093036.795.qmail@web20210.mail.yahoo.com>
To: www-html@w3.org


--- Robin Lionheart <lionheart@robinlionheart.com>
wrote:
> From: "Robin Lionheart"
> <lionheart@robinlionheart.com>
> To: "Joris Huizer" <joris_huizer@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: favicon.ico vs <link> - add link type
> for shortcut icon?
> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 02:10:50 -0400
> 
> > But, that increases the problem with link type
> 'icon'
> > -  if it's not possible to do something with the
> link
> > type unless your browser is graphical, should it
> > really be in the official specification of (x)html
> ?
> > Are there other examples in the specification
> about
> > something which is only possible in one group of
> > browsers ?
> 
> Well, you know, <img> is really only useful for
> graphical browsers. :)
> 
> But looking at things that were added in HTML 4.0:
> 
> "accesskey" and "tabindex" are quite
> interface-dependent attributes.
> 
> The "scope", "headers", and "abbr" attributes of
> table cells are mainly
> for the benefit of audio browsers.
> 
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Received on Sunday, 29 June 2003 05:30:38 GMT

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