W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2001

icons for pages/sites/etc. (was Re: src attribute of IFRAME and FRAME)

From: Tantek Celik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 13:57:52 -0800
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <0GNW00D8D4UGHA@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net>
From: Frank Tobin <ftobin@neverending.org>
Subject: Re: src attribute of IFRAME and FRAME
Date: Wed, Dec 5, 2001, 1:30 PM

> Vadim Plessky, at 23:19 -0000 on 2001-12-05, wrote:
>
>> But at the same time favicon enhances user's browsing expereince.
>> When you see favicon in bookmark or in location bar, you can understand
>> better what is this site about (in case when icon is goog, of course)
>
> Mozilla's support for <link rel="icon" /> is much nicer than favicon,
> because it is page-specific, which is much better than favicon, which by
> nature is domain-wide.  Bookmarks point to URL's, so the contents of
> 'that' URL should be the one specifying the icon, not some domain favicon,
> which might be out of the control of the page author.

I can see use cases for both, so why not have both?

On another note, since an "icon" for a page is purely presentational, this
really should be done with CSS instead (discussion redirected to www-style).

Something like this should work:

 :root { icon:url(foo.gif); } /* pick a better property name? */

This would enable you to set the "icon" for a particular child element as
well, so that if you were to drag & drop just that child element to your
desktop, the resulting file would have the specified icon.

By using linked style sheets, you could specify a default icon for your
entire site, and then customize it for pages that required a page-specific
icon.

Tantek
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2001 16:54:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:11 GMT