W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2008

[whatwg] <link rel=icon width=

From: Brady Eidson <beidson@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 10:40:42 -0700
Message-ID: <65764E3E-2720-4E3F-9EE8-905B2C305676@apple.com>

On May 5, 2008, at 10:28 AM, Ernest Cline wrote:

> -----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.

I agree with this, and continue to like the idea of a specialized  
element for the icon.

~Brady
Received on Monday, 5 May 2008 10:40:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:02 UTC