- From: Kornel Lesinski <kornel@osiolki.net>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 20:10:25 +0100
On Wed, 28 May 2008 13:07:50 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: >> I'm afraid that this could cause trouble (every visitor downloading icon >> that's 20?300 times larger than typical favicon). Why not use >> rel=application-icon or rel=appicon? > > I don't understand the question. <link rel=icon> is currently used for favicons. Favicons are expected to be small (in byte size). Current browsers always download favicons on every website. If page author adds high-quality image using rel=icon (like Vista's 100KB icon or Leopard's 300KB monstrosity), it may significantly increase site's traffic (these icons will be downloaded by every visitor rather than only those who create a shortcut). e.g.: <link rel=icon sizes=16x16 href=tinyicon.png> <link rel=icon sizes=256x256 href=hugeicon.ico> In current browsers this will not work as expected - browsers will download the big application icon, which is going to be order of magnitude larger (in byte size) than a favicon. Using rel=application-icon instead of rel=icon would avoid this problem. Another solution would be to suggest that authors specify favicon as last in the tree order (example it the spec lists favicon first). -- regards, Kornel Lesi?ski
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2008 12:10:25 UTC