- From: Michael A. Puls II <shadow2531@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:05:37 -0400
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:46:01 -0400, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:32:59 +0200, Michael A. Puls II > <shadow2531 at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:10:02 -0400, Anne van Kesteren >> <annevk at opera.com> wrote: >>> Is this not already known? Or is there no same-origin restriction on >>> these methods? >> >> Do you mean, is the location known like favicon.ico at the root of the >> site? It's not always in that spot. And, if it's not a favicon, but a >> png for example, it could be anywhere on the site. > > I have a PNG called favicon.ico on my site, but what I meant is that the > user has likely visited the site already so a favicon of some sorts will > be known. O.K., I see. Thank for clarifying. In those cases, a favicon will most likely be already known. But, take Opera's webmailproviders.ini for example. You have to manually specify the icon location. It's not discovered automatically through other means. If the user allowed registerProtocolHandler to add a webmail entry to the file, being able to say what icon to load would be great. But, even if a favicon (or other type of pic) can be discovered automatically, will the browser pick the right one? Maybe there's a specific file that should be used. Now, if every UA's protocol configuration is going to be plain jane text-only, then an icon for example isn't an issue. -- Michael
Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2009 09:05:37 UTC