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 10:36:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20030630173617.30490.qmail@web11703.mail.yahoo.com>
To: "J. King" <mtknight@dark-phantasy.com>, "www-html.w3.org" <www-html@w3.org>

I definately would not want favicon.ico to ever be considered as a required
file for a server root. The worst thing about that is that the favicon
shouldn't have to be only icon format. The second worst thing is that people
shouldn't be forced to have a site icon, nor a certain file not to have crap
appear in their logs. I'm surprised I didn't hear of people creating invalid
icons purposefully to crash IE for messing up their logs. I know some people
had considered it.

--- "J. King" <mtknight@dark-phantasy.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:35:59 +0200 (MEST), Jens Meiert 
> <jens.meiert@erde3.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >> 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" />
> >
> >
> 
> This seems the sensible root to me, though an icon doesn't really reflect a 
> document's title necessarily.
> 
> -- 
> J.
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Received on Monday, 30 June 2003 13:36:18 GMT

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