Michael Nahrath wrote: > Colin Thefleau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Yes I think those favicon are really nice and Mozilla should have them. >> It gives a better overview in the bookmarks. > > Please read the bug! > > It is about much more than icons for bookmarks. > It is about icons that are connected to the page immediately at load > time and that are displayed without extra user action (bookmarking). > > This was a much more interesting feature for web authors than the > unreliable bookmark-icon thing (I think about using this for chapter > numbers or minimal cartoons :-) > >> It's in no way an "emulation" of IE, Konqueror uses them also. > > ... in a way that floods lots webservers with requests about a file that > has never been wanted or referenced by the webmasters. > > If there is no uproar about this impolitenes of Konqueror it may be > caused by the rareness our sites are visited by Konqueror users. > > <http://www.favicon.com> gives the advice to webmasters who feel > disturbed to redirect all those unwellcome requests: > > RedirectMatch permanent .*/favicon\.ico$ > http://www.microsoft.com/favicon.ico/requests/are/flooding/my/error/log > > Do you know how many hits this site gets per day? Do we need browser > detection in the future to redirect the spamming requests to th right > evil-doer? > > Greeting, Michi Sure Favicon are not only for bookmarks. Like you pointed out, Konqueror is requesting the file anyway, if it exists or not. I was aware of it only when I saw all those errors in my log files, and I agree, this is not the right way of doing it. I hope the Konqueror team will correct it.
Colin
