Re: favicon.ico vs <link> - add link type for shortcut icon?

--- Arthur Wiebe <webmaster@awiebe.com> wrote:
> 
> Robin Lionheart wrote:
> 
> >Brian Bober wrote:
> >:: This is obviously an old issue, but couldn't we add
> >:: "shortcut icon" or just "icon" and "shorcut" meaning the same thing (and
> >:: working if placed together) into
> >:: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-links?
> >
> >rel="shortcut icon" defines two relationships, 'shortcut' and 'icon'.
> >
> >A definition of rel="icon" would suffice.
> >
> >rel="shortcut" isn't an appropriate relationship between a document and an
> >icon, since "shortcut" is IE's synonym for "bookmark". Better to leave
> >"shortcut" undefined and ignored.
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> rel="icon" should be added to the spec. It is already supported by 
> Mozilla, I don't know if IE supports it or not.
> <Arthur/>
> 

I think IE only supports rel="shortcut icon", but that ignores the true meaning
for a space in the rel, to seperate items. 

<!ENTITY % LinkTypes "CDATA"
    -- space-separated list of link types
    -->

They should have done it: ShortcutIcon.

Another thing Mozilla supports is that you can use any kind of 16x16 image. For
instance, Mozilla.org has: <link REL="icon" HREF="images/mozilla-16.png"
TYPE="image/png">

There is merit to the way IE does it, and that is that you don't have to have
that <link> in every page. The problem is it that you shouldn't be fetching for
non-existant files on the server. robots.txt is bad enough.People shouldn't
have to throw favicon.ico on their server to not have access errors in their
logs. Another problem is that its a privacy issues.

All these issues have been beaten into the ground for years, and I just wonder
why its never been placed in the standards.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 18:55:55 UTC