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

Sorry about the format, I'm using a crappy Web interface instead of my
normal mail program.  <link> is the way to do it in my opinion.  rel,
however, is the wrong attribute.  The page is not the icon, the link is,
therefor rev is the correct attribute.  Just like we use rev="made" because
the link is the maker of the page and not the other way around.

----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Moschini <Chris.Moschini@amdocs.com>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 10:10:23 AM
To: Joris Huizer <joris_huizer@yahoo.com>; <www-html@w3.org>
Subject: RE: favicon.ico vs <link> - add link type for shortcut icon?

> > Well, I think the main reason might be, this link type
> only has something to do with graphical browsers;
> text-only browsers, or speech browsers - will simply
> ignore it...
> 
> Although it's only really useful for graphical browsers, that doesn't
mean it's useless.
> 
> That is interesting you mention CSS however; perhaps reference to
"favicon" belongs in a site's CSS instead. Adding this to the standard
would at least ensure Mozilla and Opera would follow quickly, though IE it
appears is set in stone... .
> 
> If a link tag is used, I agree "shortcut icon" is entirely
innappropriate. It refers specifically to the Windows Desktop, and violates
standards regarding the rel attribute. "icon" is the proper value. I also
agree that Mozilla's acceptance of any image type (not just the .ico
format) is appropriate.
> 
> The question lies in, I suppose:
> 
> Should the standard be one that formally agrees with and expands what's
already there (that is, link rel="icon", any image format), or should it
avoid such an obscure syntax and be added to the most sensible place for
it, CSS, even though it means it will never see light of day on authors'
sites for at least several years to come?

Received on Monday, 30 June 2003 11:46:57 UTC