On Fri, 2006-03-10 at 00:37 -0500, Adam Hooper wrote: > On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 19:45 -0900, Dan Freckleton wrote: > > What's wrong with supporting the standard implementation of favicon.ico > > exactly? For what reason is epiphany limited to only displaying 1 out of > > every 5 of them? > > It produces huge quantities of spurious file requests, which sucks for > the website host. Admittedly, it's more of a cosmetic issue, since it > can be worked around. But it's freakin' annoying to see thousands of 404 > errors in your server logs because people tried to access sites you > never provided a link to.
If IE and Mozilla/Firefox do it already, does it make much difference to web admins if we do it too? Only the users would seem to notice. -- Murray Cumming [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com _______________________________________________ epiphany-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/epiphany-list
