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

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

From: Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:09:18 +0200 (MEST)
To: Chris Moschini <Chris.Moschini@amdocs.com>
Cc: www-html@w3.org, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <19814.1056992958@www5.gmx.net>

> 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>
Received on Monday, 30 June 2003 13:09:25 GMT

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