- From: Ernest Cline <ernestcline@mindspring.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 13:28:37 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
-----Original Message----- >From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> >Sent: May 5, 2008 5:27 AM > >On Sun, 04 May 2008 02:38:03 +0200, Ernest Cline ><ernestcline at mindspring.com> wrote: >> Perhaps, but it means adding attributes to <link> elements that will >> only be needed for a single link type. If the use case for these >> attributes is strong enough to add special purpose attributes for use >> with only <link rel=icon> then I dare say that it is strong enough to >> have a special purpose <icon> element so as to keep user agents from >> having to deal with nonsense such as <link rel=stylesheet height=32 >> width=32> > ><icon> would not be backwards compatible. In some user agents (at least >Opera and Firefox) that would imply a <body> element for instance. Would making <icon> an optional content of <title> break backwards compatibility? The incompatibility problem you mention comes from the start and end tags of both <head> and <body> being optional. That isn't the case for title and it makes sense syntactically to place it there as the icon is part of the identifying information for the document.
Received on Monday, 5 May 2008 10:28:37 UTC