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: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:32:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20030630173216.8946.qmail@web11705.mail.yahoo.com>
To: Chris Moschini <Chris.Moschini@amdocs.com>, "'Jens Meiert'" <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
Cc: www-html@w3.org, www-style@w3.org

When I really think about it, I have to agree wholeheartedly it should be in
CSS and not in <link>. This could be put in the CSS standard, and if browsers
also want to support the <link> method proprietarily for people used to it,
that's their choice. There are a lot more advantages for putting it in CSS.
Another one that wasn't mentioned is that you could change the icon dynamically
on a fully loaded page (hopefully not being abused to create animated icons).

--- Chris Moschini <Chris.Moschini@amdocs.com> wrote:
> 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.>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The information contained in this message is proprietary of Amdocs,
> 
> protected from disclosure, and may be privileged.
> 
> The information is intended to be conveyed only to the designated
> recipient(s)
> 
> of the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
> 
> you are hereby notified that any dissemination, use, distribution or copying
> of 
> 
> this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. 
> 
> If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
> immediately
> 
> by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Received on Monday, 30 June 2003 13:32:17 GMT

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