Re: Another IE5 complaint
On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Robin Berjon wrote: > At 20:08 23/11/1999 +, Matt Sergeant wrote: > >What sucks is it's MS lock-in. To create a .ico file you have to have a > >Windows machine. So webmasters now have to have windows machines to work > >with this concept. Had it been .png I would have felt differently. > > Not that I want to make this already too long thread even longer that bad, > but iirc ImageMagic handles ico files. Also, it wouldn't be too hard to > create a tool to create them. People have missed my point. I'm not saying that .ico is a closed format that you _can't_ create on any other platform. Just like MS Word isn't a closed format you can't create on any other platform (the specs for MS Word are actually available on MSDN cd's). My point is simply that .ico is _specifically_ a windows format - all the little .ico creating packages are windows apps for that reason. Had MS picked .png that would be a different story altogether. But they didn't - now why do you think that is? Sorry, this is completely off topic, but it's decisions like these that take place in a nanosecond that really spoil the web for a lifetime IMHO. -- Details: FastNet Software Ltd - XML, Perl, Databases. Tagline: High Performance Web Solutions Web Sites: http://come.to/fastnet http://sergeant.org Available for Consultancy, Contracts and Training.
Re: Another IE5 complaint
Sorry everyone...I thought this was dead also. I sent this to list the couple of months ago, it got sent again by mistake. I did not realize it was also sitting in my out box on my home computer. I recently made a change in sendmail to allow that computer to relay through our office server, then the mail went out. Joe Pearson -Original Message- From: Tim Tompkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 10:10 PM Subject: Re: Another IE5 complaint >Is this horse dead yet?!? I don't know, but let's kick it an' see if it >squeels! > > > >Thanks, > >Tim Tompkins >-- >Programmer / IS Technician >http://www.arttoday.com/ > >- Original Message - >From: Stephen Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 4:10 AM >Subject: RE: Another IE5 complaint > > > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Rod Butcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: 23 November 1999 10:20 >> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: Another IE5 complaint >> >> >> Am I the only battling service vendor who actually feels good when >> somebody bookmarks my website ? >> I can absorb the overhead of accesses to a favorites icon. >> This may be a security hazard for the client, but I detect a >> holier-than-thou attitude here against M$. >> Will somebody tell me why this M$ initiative is bad, other than for >> pre-determined prejudices ? >> Rgds >> Rod Butcher > >Speaking as someone who works for an ISP, anything that obscures (by volume) >genuine errors is a Bad Thing. The error log is a useful diagnostic tool >only if you can see the errors. Yes, you could filter out the requests >before examining the file, but the point is MS is making more work for >people by being thoughtless. > >Further reasons it's a bad idea >* It's not standard >* It's a specific solution to a general problem, and therefore >fragile (i.e. it breaks too easily) >* It's a quick hack rather than a genuine initiative (which would >take effort) > >Stephen. >-- > >The views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of >Planet Online Limited. > > >
Re: Another IE5 complaint
SWQAAK Tim Tompkins wrote: > > Is this horse dead yet?!? I don't know, but let's kick it an' see if it > squeels! > > Thanks, > > Tim Tompkins > -- Ruben I Safir [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.brooklynonline.com Manager of Intranet Development NYU College of Dentistry Resume: http://www.wynn.com/jewish/resume.html Perl Notes: http://www.wynn.com/jewish/perl_course
Re: Another IE5 complaint
Is this horse dead yet?!? I don't know, but let's kick it an' see if it squeels! Thanks, Tim Tompkins -- Programmer / IS Technician http://www.arttoday.com/ - Original Message - From: Stephen Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 4:10 AM Subject: RE: Another IE5 complaint > -Original Message- > From: Rod Butcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 23 November 1999 10:20 > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Another IE5 complaint > > > Am I the only battling service vendor who actually feels good when > somebody bookmarks my website ? > I can absorb the overhead of accesses to a favorites icon. > This may be a security hazard for the client, but I detect a > holier-than-thou attitude here against M$. > Will somebody tell me why this M$ initiative is bad, other than for > pre-determined prejudices ? > Rgds > Rod Butcher Speaking as someone who works for an ISP, anything that obscures (by volume) genuine errors is a Bad Thing. The error log is a useful diagnostic tool only if you can see the errors. Yes, you could filter out the requests before examining the file, but the point is MS is making more work for people by being thoughtless. Further reasons it's a bad idea * It's not standard * It's a specific solution to a general problem, and therefore fragile (i.e. it breaks too easily) * It's a quick hack rather than a genuine initiative (which would take effort) Stephen. -- The views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Planet Online Limited.
Re: Another IE5 complaint
Most of my users are .fr people. My logs show more than 70% of them as IE users. MS is clearly in the process of enjoying one more monopolistic situation. People just don't download Netscape. What's more surprising is the enormous proportion of IE5 users over IEx users. Seems to me that if we let them do every damn thing crosses their dumb minds, we are in for long-time troubles ;( Fabrice Scemama Eric Cholet wrote: > > > Am I the only battling service vendor who actually feels good when > > somebody bookmarks my website ? > > I can absorb the overhead of accesses to a favorites icon. > > This may be a security hazard for the client, but I detect a > > holier-than-thou attitude here against M$. > > Will somebody tell me why this M$ initiative is bad, other than for > > pre-determined prejudices ? > > Maybe we're getting tired of MS initiatives, such as the very rude > offline site grabbing IE5 does, the crude implementation of this > favicon thing, the fact that IE5 replaces error messages with its own > if they aren't at least 512 bytes or something, er, the list probably > goes on a bit. Sure we can deal with all that, but at our cost and > sweet time. > > > Rgds > > Rod Butcher > > -- > Eric
RE: Another IE5 complaint
> -Original Message- > From: Rod Butcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 23 November 1999 10:20 > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Another IE5 complaint > > > Am I the only battling service vendor who actually feels good when > somebody bookmarks my website ? > I can absorb the overhead of accesses to a favorites icon. > This may be a security hazard for the client, but I detect a > holier-than-thou attitude here against M$. > Will somebody tell me why this M$ initiative is bad, other than for > pre-determined prejudices ? > Rgds > Rod Butcher Speaking as someone who works for an ISP, anything that obscures (by volume) genuine errors is a Bad Thing. The error log is a useful diagnostic tool only if you can see the errors. Yes, you could filter out the requests before examining the file, but the point is MS is making more work for people by being thoughtless. Further reasons it's a bad idea * It's not standard * It's a specific solution to a general problem, and therefore fragile (i.e. it breaks too easily) * It's a quick hack rather than a genuine initiative (which would take effort) Stephen. -- The views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Planet Online Limited.
Re: Another IE5 complaint
At 20:08 23/11/1999 +, Matt Sergeant wrote: >What sucks is it's MS lock-in. To create a .ico file you have to have a >Windows machine. So webmasters now have to have windows machines to work >with this concept. Had it been .png I would have felt differently. Not that I want to make this already too long thread even longer that bad, but iirc ImageMagic handles ico files. Also, it wouldn't be too hard to create a tool to create them. .Robin After all, what is your hosts' purpose in having a party? Surely not for you to enjoy yourself; if that were their sole purpose, they'd have simply sent champagne and women over to your place by taxi.
Re: Another IE5 complaint
A really cheesy 6-year old 16-bit icon making application and WINE will do it. darren Matt Sergeant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > What sucks is it's MS lock-in. To create a .ico file you have to have a > Windows machine. So webmasters now have to have windows machines to work > with this concept. Had it been .png I would have felt differently.
Re: Another IE5 complaint
On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote: > Rod Butcher wrote: > > > > Am I the only battling service vendor who actually feels good when > > somebody bookmarks my website ? > > I can absorb the overhead of accesses to a favorites icon. > > This may be a security hazard for the client, but I detect a > > holier-than-thou attitude here against M$. > > Will somebody tell me why this M$ initiative is bad, other than for > > pre-determined prejudices ? > > Rgds > > Rod Butcher > > What he said. I don't see what sucks so much about burning a few bytes > of bandwith to have your site's big fat icon on the user's desktop! And > it isn't like they made up an HTTP ICON request type, they are using > standard methods to get the file. What sucks is it's MS lock-in. To create a .ico file you have to have a Windows machine. So webmasters now have to have windows machines to work with this concept. Had it been .png I would have felt differently. -- Details: FastNet Software Ltd - XML, Perl, Databases. Tagline: High Performance Web Solutions Web Sites: http://come.to/fastnet http://sergeant.org Available for Consultancy, Contracts and Training.
Re: Another IE5 complaint
That would only work for unix? Or will that mess with windows as well? Tom Christiansen wrote: > > >Are you going to > >complain about all the 404 errors in your log, or are you going to use a > >simple RewriteRule to give people the information they are seeking? > > Well, in the Microsoft case, I'd probably dynamically rewrite the link > to file:///dev/mouse or file:///dev/zero, if that made any sense to > those denizens. > > But that's just me. :-) > > --tom -- Ruben I Safir [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.brooklynonline.com Manager of Intranet Development NYU College of Dentistry Resume: http://www.wynn.com/jewish/resume.html Perl Notes: http://www.wynn.com/jewish/perl_course
Re: Another IE5 complaint
>Are you going to >complain about all the 404 errors in your log, or are you going to use a >simple RewriteRule to give people the information they are seeking? Well, in the Microsoft case, I'd probably dynamically rewrite the link to file:///dev/mouse or file:///dev/zero, if that made any sense to those denizens. But that's just me. :-) --tom
Re: Another IE5 complaint
Jeff Stuart wrote: > Jeffrey Baker wrote: > > What he said. I don't see what sucks so much about burning a few bytes > > of bandwith to have your site's big fat icon on the user's desktop! And > > it isn't like they made up an HTTP ICON request type, they are using > > standard methods to get the file. > > > > -jwb > > > Well, let's see. Say the icon is 2K in size. Then, let's say you get 1Mil in > hits a day. 50% of those are IE5. Ok, that's 500K hits from IE5 asking for > that 2K file. So that's 1Mb of data a day JUST for that damn icon. Over a > month is 30 Mb of bandwidth JUST for that damn icon. Bandwidth is not cheap > folks! Someone has to pay for bandwidth. And some plans only allow for 30 Mb > a month. I was unable to glean a persuasive argument from your message, despite your liberal use of capital letters and explitives. You have several things wrong. The icon files are 16x16x8 bits, and the format requires 1KB. The icon is not requested on each request, only when a user bookmarks your site using IE 5. Clearly this number will be a tiny fraction of all requests a site serves. With caching effects, you can expect to transmit even fewer bites to the large ISPs. Last, nobody is forcing you to transmit the icon. You can simply redirect it using mod_rewrite or intercept it with a mod_perl log handler and discard the log entry. > Remember folks, bandwidth costs money! Someone has to pay for it. Maybe not > you but someone does. EVEN THE FREE HOSTS! This is not the point. If you have GIFs on your page, you are paying to transmit those, too. If you don't want to transmit the icon, don't provide the icon! There are technological means to handle this on the server side and it takes less time than complaining about it in public. I think the prevailing philosophy on this subject is dead wrong. On the web, any and all requests can and will come in. You cannot trust the client! If you rely on the web, you must be prepared to gracefully handle all situations that might arise. This might include a broken client making bad requests to your server in a tight loop (Mozilla M8), or it might include a client occasionally requesting a file that doesn't exist (IE 5). Think about this: what if your site gets linked on Slashdot, and they spell the link incorrectly. Are you going to complain about all the 404 errors in your log, or are you going to use a simple RewriteRule to give people the information they are seeking? -jwb
Re: Another IE5 complaint
Rod Butcher wrote: > > Am I the only battling service vendor who actually feels good when > somebody bookmarks my website ? > I can absorb the overhead of accesses to a favorites icon. > This may be a security hazard for the client, but I detect a > holier-than-thou attitude here against M$. > Will somebody tell me why this M$ initiative is bad, other than for > pre-determined prejudices ? > Rgds > Rod Butcher What he said. I don't see what sucks so much about burning a few bytes of bandwith to have your site's big fat icon on the user's desktop! And it isn't like they made up an HTTP ICON request type, they are using standard methods to get the file. -jwb
Re: Another IE5 complaint
On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Ruben I Safir wrote: > > > Is this sort of thing implimented in Netscape? Is rev and rel > implemented in any fashion? It's not implemented for favicon, no. But LINK REL is supported by Navigator for external CSS stylesheets, for example. That's the only use I know of, though. Steve -- business: http://hesketh.com ...custom medium- to large-scale web sites the book: http://dhtml-guis.com ...Building Dynamic HTML GUIs from IDG punditry: http://a.jaundicedeye.com ...negative forces have value personal: http://hesketh.com/schampeo/ ...info, projects, random stuff
Re: Another IE5 complaint
Is this sort of thing implimented in Netscape? Is rev and rel implemented in any fashion? -- Ruben I Safir [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.brooklynonline.com Manager of Intranet Development NYU College of Dentisty Resume: http://www.wynn.com/jewish/resume.html Perl Notes: http://www.wynn.com/jewish/perl_course
Re: Another IE5 complaint
IE 4/5 hits are more than 50% of the http://translator.go.com/ site I am
working on, and I make sure I serve up a favicon.ico to all of thos
guys. I get lots of bookmark requests and love it.
Rod Butcher wrote:
>
> Am I the only battling service vendor who actually feels good when
> somebody bookmarks my website ?
> I can absorb the overhead of accesses to a favorites icon.
> This may be a security hazard for the client, but I detect a
> holier-than-thou attitude here against M$.
> Will somebody tell me why this M$ initiative is bad, other than for
> pre-determined prejudices ?
> Rgds
> Rod Butcher
>
> Matt Sergeant wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 01 Oct 1999, Joe Pearson wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Maybe everyone already knows this, but I just discovered that
> > > whenever a IE5 user visits a page in their "Favorites", IE5 also trys
> > > to GET favicon.ico from the same site. Therefor I have hundreds of
> > > "File does not exist:" errors in my log file.
> >
> > Apparently you can BSOD a winbox with a buffer overflow in a .ico file,
> > although I don't know where the exploit is listed on the net (distant
> > memory). Maybe that would stop this dumb practice. :)
> >
> > (I _am_ just kidding).
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Details: FastNet Software Ltd - XML, Perl, Databases.
> > Tagline: High Performance Web Solutions
> > Web Sites: http://come.to/fastnet http://sergeant.org
> > Available for Consultancy, Contracts and Training.
>
> --
> Rod Butcher | "... I gaze at the beauty of the world,
> Hyena Holdings Internet | its wonders and its miracles and out of
> Programming | sheer joy I laugh even as the day laughs.
> ("it's us or the vultures") | And then the people of the jungle say,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 'It is but the laughter of a hyena'".
> |Kahlil Gibran.. The Wanderer
--
Craig Shaver, Productivity Group
POB 60458 Sunnyvale, CA 94088 (650)390-0654
http://www.progroup.com/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Another IE5 complaint
> Am I the only battling service vendor who actually feels good when > somebody bookmarks my website ? > I can absorb the overhead of accesses to a favorites icon. > This may be a security hazard for the client, but I detect a > holier-than-thou attitude here against M$. > Will somebody tell me why this M$ initiative is bad, other than for > pre-determined prejudices ? Maybe we're getting tired of MS initiatives, such as the very rude offline site grabbing IE5 does, the crude implementation of this favicon thing, the fact that IE5 replaces error messages with its own if they aren't at least 512 bytes or something, er, the list probably goes on a bit. Sure we can deal with all that, but at our cost and sweet time. > Rgds > Rod Butcher -- Eric
Re: Another IE5 complaint
On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Rod Butcher wrote: > Am I the only battling service vendor who actually feels good when > somebody bookmarks my website ? No. > I can absorb the overhead of accesses to a favorites icon. So can I. > This may be a security hazard for the client, but I detect a > holier-than-thou attitude here against M$. *cough* > Will somebody tell me why this M$ initiative is bad, other than for > pre-determined prejudices ? Because, as usual, it's a decent idea implemented horribly. MS could have simply made it an optional feature, triggered by a LINK element: which, in fact, they also support. But instead, not only does IE5 always ask for favicon.ico, it asks for it /relative to the URL being bookmarked/. This means that if I have a site that actually /has/ a favicon.ico file in the root directory, /that isn't enough/. I also need to either define my favicon using LINK tags in every document on my site, or use server-based redirects to grab all requests for it. It's just fundamentally stupid. I don't like it when vendors do wildly irresponsible things. Steve
RE: Another IE5 complaint
Because it's not transparent. You either have to put up with bogus junk in
your log files or provide what they decided to implement on their own. All
of the various internet standards committees weren't formed for nothing. I
was thinking this over yesterday and I can see some value in the "feature"
for commercial for profit sites but I run an intranet site and for me they
server no purpose but to create headaches I didn't ask for, not that
Netscape is any better mind you. It sure would be nice if you never even
had to care what browser was being used. If they all followed the standards
and made any additions optional and off by default it would make things a
lot easier. Ok, sorry, I'm running on ...
I'm pretty sure this is getting further and further off topic. We all know
how to do redirects if that's what we want and there is plenty of info about
this on the net if someone wants to read how to implement it the M$ way.
> --
> From: Rod Butcher[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 4:20 AM
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Another IE5 complaint
>
> Am I the only battling service vendor who actually feels good when
> somebody bookmarks my website ?
> I can absorb the overhead of accesses to a favorites icon.
> This may be a security hazard for the client, but I detect a
> holier-than-thou attitude here against M$.
> Will somebody tell me why this M$ initiative is bad, other than for
> pre-determined prejudices ?
> Rgds
> Rod Butcher
>
> Matt Sergeant wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 01 Oct 1999, Joe Pearson wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Maybe everyone already knows this, but I just discovered that
> > > whenever a IE5 user visits a page in their "Favorites", IE5 also trys
> > > to GET favicon.ico from the same site. Therefor I have hundreds of
> > > "File does not exist:" errors in my log file.
> >
> > Apparently you can BSOD a winbox with a buffer overflow in a .ico file,
> > although I don't know where the exploit is listed on the net (distant
> > memory). Maybe that would stop this dumb practice. :)
> >
> > (I _am_ just kidding).
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Details: FastNet Software Ltd - XML, Perl, Databases.
> > Tagline: High Performance Web Solutions
> > Web Sites: http://come.to/fastnet http://sergeant.org
> > Available for Consultancy, Contracts and Training.
>
> --
> Rod Butcher | "... I gaze at the beauty of the world,
> Hyena Holdings Internet | its wonders and its miracles and out of
> Programming | sheer joy I laugh even as the day laughs.
> ("it's us or the vultures") | And then the people of the jungle say,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 'It is but the laughter of a hyena'".
> |Kahlil Gibran.. The Wanderer
>
Re: Another IE5 complaint
Am I the only battling service vendor who actually feels good when
somebody bookmarks my website ?
I can absorb the overhead of accesses to a favorites icon.
This may be a security hazard for the client, but I detect a
holier-than-thou attitude here against M$.
Will somebody tell me why this M$ initiative is bad, other than for
pre-determined prejudices ?
Rgds
Rod Butcher
Matt Sergeant wrote:
>
> On Fri, 01 Oct 1999, Joe Pearson wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Maybe everyone already knows this, but I just discovered that
> > whenever a IE5 user visits a page in their "Favorites", IE5 also trys
> > to GET favicon.ico from the same site. Therefor I have hundreds of
> > "File does not exist:" errors in my log file.
>
> Apparently you can BSOD a winbox with a buffer overflow in a .ico file,
> although I don't know where the exploit is listed on the net (distant
> memory). Maybe that would stop this dumb practice. :)
>
> (I _am_ just kidding).
>
> --
>
>
> Details: FastNet Software Ltd - XML, Perl, Databases.
> Tagline: High Performance Web Solutions
> Web Sites: http://come.to/fastnet http://sergeant.org
> Available for Consultancy, Contracts and Training.
--
Rod Butcher | "... I gaze at the beauty of the world,
Hyena Holdings Internet | its wonders and its miracles and out of
Programming | sheer joy I laugh even as the day laughs.
("it's us or the vultures") | And then the people of the jungle say,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 'It is but the laughter of a hyena'".
|Kahlil Gibran.. The Wanderer
RE: Another IE5 complaint
Joe Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe everyone already knows this, but I just discovered that > whenever a IE5 user visits a page in their "Favorites", IE5 also trys > to GET favicon.ico from the same site. Therefor I have hundreds of > "File does not exist:" errors in my log file. Check out: http://www.wdvl.com/Authoring/Design/Images/Favicon/index.html It talks all about it. --- Fulko Hew, Voice: 905-333-6000 x 6010 Senior Engineering Designer, Direct: 905-333-6010 Northrop Grumman-Canada, Ltd.Fax:905-333-6050 777 Walkers Line,Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Burlington, Ontario, Canada, L7N 2G1 Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another IE5 complaint
At 15:10 22/11/1999 -0500, Vivek Khera wrote: >Why not just create a 10Mb large favicon.ico file for their >convenience? ;-) ;-) I played around with that idea, but most ICO files are really small, and it seems that they thought of that and do not download if it is over a few k (perhaps even less). >Or you can just use mod_rewrite or some such to redirect them >elsewhere to pluck up that icon and never see it in your error log. I just rewrite to empty_file.ico. 0k to send, no error. >Hmmm. I guess you could also write a mod_perl module to do that. >(Which would make this message topical for this list.) yeah, why not create nifty little meaningless icons on the fly :-) .Robin Earth is a beta site.
Re: Another IE5 complaint
On Fri, 01 Oct 1999, Joe Pearson wrote: > Hi all, > > Maybe everyone already knows this, but I just discovered that > whenever a IE5 user visits a page in their "Favorites", IE5 also trys > to GET favicon.ico from the same site. Therefor I have hundreds of > "File does not exist:" errors in my log file. Apparently you can BSOD a winbox with a buffer overflow in a .ico file, although I don't know where the exploit is listed on the net (distant memory). Maybe that would stop this dumb practice. :) (I _am_ just kidding). -- Details: FastNet Software Ltd - XML, Perl, Databases. Tagline: High Performance Web Solutions Web Sites: http://come.to/fastnet http://sergeant.org Available for Consultancy, Contracts and Training.
Re: Another IE5 complaint
On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Joe Pearson wrote: > Maybe everyone already knows this, but I just discovered that > whenever a IE5 user visits a page in their "Favorites", IE5 also trys > to GET favicon.ico from the same site. Therefor I have hundreds of > "File does not exist:" errors in my log file. Oh, that's an easy fix. If you're using Apache, just stick a redirect into your config so that favicon.ico requests are redirected to the microsoft.com site. RedirectMatch permanent ^.*favicon.ico$ http://www.microsoft.com/please/fix/your/stupid/browser Barring that, redirect it to your own favicon file (preferably not named 'favicon.ico', though, unless you /like/ infinite loops.) You'll need to grab /all/ requests for favicon.ico, though, as IE is so dumb it looks for the file in any subdirectory as well, so if the bookmark is for "/some/dir" it will look for "/some/dir/favicon.ico", and so forth. Steve
Re: Another IE5 complaint
> "JP" == Joe Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: JP> Maybe everyone already knows this, but I just discovered that JP> whenever a IE5 user visits a page in their "Favorites", IE5 also trys JP> to GET favicon.ico from the same site. Therefor I have hundreds of JP> "File does not exist:" errors in my log file. Why not just create a 10Mb large favicon.ico file for their convenience? ;-) ;-) Or you can just use mod_rewrite or some such to redirect them elsewhere to pluck up that icon and never see it in your error log. Hmmm. I guess you could also write a mod_perl module to do that. (Which would make this message topical for this list.) -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Vivek Khera, Ph.D.Khera Communications, Inc. Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rockville, MD +1-301-545-6996 PGP & MIME spoken herehttp://www.kciLink.com/home/khera/
Re: Another IE5 complaint
Greg Stark wrote: > (snip) > > Can the gimp save .ico files? How big and what colours etc does IE5 > expect > these to be anyways? > > -- > greg the GIMP can do it. It's a GIcon; should do the trick to win32 users. But why should we give IE5 favicon.ico's anyway ? sounds like another ms-made bullshit to my gnu-powered ears...
Re: Another IE5 complaint
On Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 03:21:17PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote: > "Joe Pearson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [] > > whenever a IE5 user visits a page in their "Favorites", IE5 also trys > > to GET favicon.ico from the same site. Therefor I have hundreds of > > "File does not exist:" errors in my log file. [...] > Can the gimp save .ico files? How big and what colours etc does IE5 expect Unknown. > these to be anyways? http://www.wdvl.com/Authoring/Design/Images/Favicon/index.html Randy
Re: Another IE5 complaint
"Joe Pearson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi all, > > Maybe everyone already knows this, but I just discovered that > whenever a IE5 user visits a page in their "Favorites", IE5 also trys > to GET favicon.ico from the same site. Therefor I have hundreds of > "File does not exist:" errors in my log file. I noticed this a while ago, but I don't see how this is a problem. It's not like returning 404's is really that big a deal for the server. The privacy issues of broadcasting to the server whenever the user sets a favourite is perhaps a bit worrisome though. Can the gimp save .ico files? How big and what colours etc does IE5 expect these to be anyways? -- greg
Re: Another IE5 complaint
I used mod_rewrite to map favicon.ico to a 0 byte file. On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Joe Pearson wrote: > Hi all, > > Maybe everyone already knows this, but I just discovered that > whenever a IE5 user visits a page in their "Favorites", IE5 also trys > to GET favicon.ico from the same site. Therefor I have hundreds of > "File does not exist:" errors in my log file.
Re: Another IE5 complaint
see http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/19160.html On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Joe Pearson wrote: > Hi all, > > Maybe everyone already knows this, but I just discovered that > whenever a IE5 user visits a page in their "Favorites", IE5 also trys > to GET favicon.ico from the same site. Therefor I have hundreds of > "File does not exist:" errors in my log file. > > Thanks Bill. > > -- > Joe Pearson > Database Management Services, Ltd. Co. > 208-384-1311 ext 11 > http://www.homecu.com > http://www.webdms.com >
