- From: Brady Eidson <beidson@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 10:40:42 -0700
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