Re: favicon

I don't have time to read every post in this thread, but I would like to say I too agree that this should not be turned on by default, and the prefrence UI should make it clearer exactly what the prefrence does. Jason Bassford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree that this should *NOT* be turne

Re: Help with favicon feature

Travis Crump wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> jesus X wrote: Travis Crump wrote: Actually, "shortcut icon" only applies to the icon in the URL bar andtabs while icon more generally refers to both the shortcut icon and thebookmark icon. There doesn't appear t

Re: Help with favicon feature

jesus X wrote: Travis Crump wrote: Actually, "shortcut icon" only applies to the icon in the URL bar andtabs while icon more generally refers to both the shortcut icon and thebookmark icon. There doesn't appear to be a way as of yet to linkdirectly to the bookmark icon(ie so you can

Re: Help with favicon feature

Patrick, create a 16 pixel square icon. Use PNG format for best results. Then you can create a 24-bit color with 8-bit translucency image. In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Patrick Gallagher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Travis Crump wrote: > > > jesus X wrote: > > > >> > >> No, you've got some

Re: Help with favicon feature

rel can be "icon". In fact, it should be. Shortcut is a Microsoft-proprietary term. In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, jesus X <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Travis Crump wrote: > > the specifications are the same as the specs for whatever image type you > > choose to use, ie png, gif, jpg , ico, bu

Re: Help with favicon feature

On 12/05/2001 11:51 PM, Patrick Gallagher wrote: > Travis Crump wrote: > >> jesus X wrote: >> >>> >>> No, you've got some details wrong. >>> >>> >>> >>> is all you need, and you never need to tell it the format of the image. >>> >> Actually, "shortcut icon" only applies to the icon in the URL b

Re: Help with favicon feature

Travis Crump wrote: > jesus X wrote: > >> >> No, you've got some details wrong. >> >> >> >> is all you need, and you never need to tell it the format of the image. >> > Actually, "shortcut icon" only applies to the icon in the URL bar and > tabs while icon more generally refers to both the sho

Re: Help with favicon feature

jesus X wrote: > >No, you've got some details wrong. > > > >is all you need, and you never need to tell it the format of the image. > Actually, "shortcut icon" only applies to the icon in the URL bar and tabs while icon more generally refers to both the shortcut icon and the bookmark icon. The

Re: Help with favicon feature

Travis Crump wrote: > the specifications are the same as the specs for whatever image type you > choose to use, ie png, gif, jpg , ico, but Mozilla is the only browser > right now that supports non-ico image types, and you have to use the > syntax when the image is not > "/favicon.ico". No, you'

Re: Help with favicon feature

Patrick Gallagher wrote: > With the icons showing in the location bar and in the bookmarks, > what are the specifications for size and colour depth allowable - it's > obviously different from the MS spec - specifically, the icon being > used for http://www.mozillazine.org is a lot more detai

Help with favicon feature

are the specifications for size and colour depth allowable - it's obviously different from the MS spec - specifically, the icon being used for http://www.mozillazine.org is a lot more detailed than that spec would allow. I've used the feature on my website, but I'm unhappy with the overall loo

Re: favicon

> 1) Favicon requests put minimal load on servers either way. Kind of like a mime at a party, who goes up to every single guest, stands in front of them, and starts performing. There's only minimal interference with the guest - but sooner or later the mime's going to get punche

Re: favicon

On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 09:09:21AM -0500, Mike Cramer wrote: > It's amazing how much anger this feature is generating. Particularly > since it amounts to giving content providers *MORE* control over the > presentation of their content than HTML allows directly without breaking > HTML, HTTP, or

Re: favicon

Mike Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 26 Nov 2001: > 4) The debate has nothing to do with web standards, because both > favicon.ico and tags are valid no matter how you slice them. You are completely wrong. is a valid web standard. Auto fet

Re: favicon

s that have no basis in the code on the > site itself. All I've been trying to explain is that: 1) Favicon requests put minimal load on servers either way. 2) If publishers want an icon displayed, and they care about bandwidth, favicon.ico is actually BETTER. 3) If you don't

Re: favicon

> It's amazing how much anger this feature is generating. Particularly > since it amounts to giving content providers *MORE* control over the > presentation of their content than HTML allows directly without breaking > HTML, HTTP, or anything else. I don't think anybody is getting angry ove

Re: favicon

Jonas Jørgensen wrote: > Wrong. Getting *MORE* control with doesn't break > HTML, HTTP, or anything else. Not wrong, just also correct. Neither favicon.ico and are wrong and both have advantages. But only one suffers from the invented-by-Microsoft syndrome. --Mike

Re: favicon

Mike Cramer wrote: > > CaT wrote: > > > Why should he have to? I thought the point to Mozilla (or at least one > > of them) was to NOT make a broken client. A client that requests > > something other then what is on a webpage is broken. > > If you are talking about an HTTP client, I don't think

Re: favicon

CaT wrote: > Why should he have to? I thought the point to Mozilla (or at least one > of them) was to NOT make a broken client. A client that requests > something other then what is on a webpage is broken. If you are talking about an HTTP client, I don't think that is true. I don't think you'l

Re: favicon

On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 10:10:09PM -0300, Daniel Mario Vega wrote: > >I'm including blocking of future versions of Mozilla in the next > >revision of my dynamic site code due to this issue (I don't have to > >treat Mozilla any better than Mozilla treats my sites). > > Grev, perhaps a simpler so

Re: favicon

Greg Miller wrote: > I'm including blocking of future versions of Mozilla in the next > revision of my dynamic site code due to this issue (I don't have to > treat Mozilla any better than Mozilla treats my sites). Grev, perhaps a simpler solution is to do: cp /dev/null /favicon.ico No m

Re: Favicon spam

over 20% if everyone adopts this favicon practice > or 7% with the hypothetical 30% marketshare that was mentioned earlier. It might be going out on a limb, but it sounds as though the real bandwidth problem is the collection of logfiles to generate statistics... I've encountered this, the

Re: Favicon spam

Greg Miller wrote: >>> Last I heard, the industry averages were supposed to be something >>> like 3:1 pageviews-to-users ratio and 50% repeat visitors. So the >>> number of favicon 404s would be approximately 1/6 of the total number >>> of pageviews. &g

Re: Favicon spam

iews for each monthly unique. The CSS file should result in 1 extra request per user. That means 4.5 HTTP requests per user. Given the caching assumption, enabling the favicon pref would increase the number of HTTP requests by exactly one per user, for an increase of 1/4.5 increase in Mozilla-gen

Re: Favicon spam

Jonas Sicking wrote: >But how/when is the absence of a file evicted? It would seem like a very >small gain for the cache-system to throw out since it would take up very few >(0) bytes. Also, Jacek Piskozub, said in the bug that the caching is per >session. Is this intended/a bug/incorrect? > Inco

Re: Favicon spam

Ian Davey wrote: > Greg Miller wrote: >> Last I heard, the industry averages were supposed to be something like >> 3:1 pageviews-to-users ratio and 50% repeat visitors. So the number of >> favicon 404s would be approximately 1/6 of the total number of pageviews. > >

Re: Favicon spam

Ian Davey wrote: > > 1/(6*10*10) > > So that accounts to 1/6000 resource requests. If you can come up with > some numbers to fill in the above guesses then you'd get closer to the > actual figure. That should be 1/600 - it's too early in the morning :-) ian.

Re: Favicon spam

> 3:1 pageviews-to-users ratio and 50% repeat visitors. So the number of > favicon 404s would be approximately 1/6 of the total number of pageviews. That would only be true if every site consisted of just a single page, which is clearly untrue. From what I've read so far, the current i

Re: Favicon spam

mber of 404s per (for example) month in > the event of a browser with, say, 30% marketshare using the current > configuration. Last I heard, the industry averages were supposed to be something like 3:1 pageviews-to-users ratio and 50% repeat visitors. So the number of favicon 404s would be

Re: favicon

Pratik wrote: > On 11/20/01 11:47 AM, Greg Miller wrote: > > > >>> But maybe I'm wrong and banning everyone except IE usets is *the way*. >> >> >> >> Who said anything about banning everyone except IE users? The >> technique I've

Re: Favicon spam

items. > > dave > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > Jonas Sicking wrote: > > > A lot of oppinions has been expressed with regard to if the favicon should > > be default on or off since it might spam webservers with requests to a > > non-existing file. > > > > I

Re: Favicon spam

te: > A lot of oppinions has been expressed with regard to if the favicon should > be default on or off since it might spam webservers with requests to a > non-existing file. > > It would be really interesting to get some hard numbers on this. Just > looking at the current logs w

Favicon spam

A lot of oppinions has been expressed with regard to if the favicon should be default on or off since it might spam webservers with requests to a non-existing file. It would be really interesting to get some hard numbers on this. Just looking at the current logs will not really say anything

Re: favicon

On 11/20/01 11:47 AM, Greg Miller wrote: >>But maybe I'm wrong and banning everyone except IE usets is *the way*. >> > > > Who said anything about banning everyone except IE users? The technique > I've implemented now only affects favicon spammers. What

Re: favicon

users? The technique I've implemented now only affects favicon spammers.

Re: favicon

David Hyatt wrote: > Make sure you ban Konqueror too. :) And don't forget IE...! ian.

Re: Favicon may be dubious as a Mozilla default ...

konquorer has this enabled by default too doesn't it? I wouldn't say that it was only eye candy value! When you're using the tabs it's sometimes easy to get confused, especailly when people use innapropriate tags. This is usability! Nice feature. David Gerard wrote: > but by Crikey it's nice

Favicon may be dubious as a Mozilla default ...

but by Crikey it's nice for eyecandy, especially when tab-browsing. I'm on build 200808-trunk here. Lots of sites do favicon.ico and it looks REALLY COOL. I would be unsurprised if Netscape wanted this on by default for future releases, even though it would utterly entrench it as a default st

Re: favicon

Greg Miller wrote: > > Anyway, I no longer need an answer to my question. I've worked out a > compromise for redirecting people who hit me with favicon requests from > non-IE browsers (MS is simply too common to do anything about). > I'm shocked by your opportun

Re: favicon

Greg Miller wrote: > > I'm including blocking of future versions of Mozilla in the next > revision of my dynamic site code due to this issue (I don't have to > treat Mozilla any better than Mozilla treats my sites). I was wondering > if there was any way to check (via JS or whatever) whether

Re: favicon

Michael Nahrath wrote: > Greg Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Apparently, there's going to be a UI for this pref. >> > > What brings you to that idea? > > is the last > thing I heared from the inner circle that makes decissions at > ne

Re: favicon

ntirely different case. W3C DOM isn't hostile to me. Favicon spamming is. > Microsoft has control over it. Would you have banned NS6.5 if it was a > closed source browser and had this favicon feature? Probably, if all the other circumstances were the same.

Re: Stealing Netscape's favicon

flynn wrote: > Look who's pinched Netscapes favicon logo > > http://www.cia.gov/ > > > If you access the site with Communicator you'll notice that "Location" changes to "Netsite" which indicates that they are running "Netscape Enterpr

Re: Stealing Netscape's favicon

In article <9t9rs8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, flynn wrote: > Look who's pinched Netscapes favicon logo > > http://www.cia.gov/ > Hardly "pinched"; as far as I can tell, NS Enterprise Server automatically sets up the NS logo as a favicon, hence its presence on nu

Stealing Netscape's favicon

Look who's pinched Netscapes favicon logo http://www.cia.gov/

Re: favicon

Greg Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Most users will never start to edit their 'userpref.js' by hand but if > > you provide a simple solution - just klick on this link and then press > > OK to allow installation - a lot more users may follow your wishes. > Apparently, there's going to be a

Re: favicon

On 11/18/2001 12:26 PM, Greg Miller wrote: > Tim Wunder wrote: > > >>Greg Miller wrote: >>Huh? >>It's OK to block Mozilla because of favicon requests, but not IE? >>Wouldn't IE, because of its prevalence, cause MORE of a problem for your >>

Re: favicon

Michael Nahrath wrote: > Greg Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>I'm including blocking of future versions of Mozilla in the next >>revision of my dynamic site code due to this issue (I don't have to >>treat Mozilla any better than Mozilla treats my sites). >> > > You know that I stron

Re: favicon

Tim Wunder wrote: > Greg Miller wrote: > Huh? > It's OK to block Mozilla because of favicon requests, but not IE? > Wouldn't IE, because of its prevalence, cause MORE of a problem for your > servers than Mozilla? First off, IE only makes favicon requests in the eve

Re: favicon

single page... If someone wants to use a background picture on his site, he has to insert a on his page, if someone wants to use a stylesheet on his site, he has to insert some on his page. And if someone wants a spezial icon for his page, I can't think of any reason, why he shouldn't h

Re: mozilla.org favicon

Travis Crump wrote: > I like the new icon for mozilla.org, but am I alone in thinking that it > would look better on a transparent background instead of the white > background? The white background looks pretty bad in the Tab titles and > even in the location bar it makes you do a double take

Re: favicon

programming dynamic site code there are several solutions: 1. Redirecting all requests for /favicon.ico to the browser vendor's website was described long ago. >From <http://www.favicon.com>: | RedirectMatch permanent .*/favicon\.ico$ URL | | where URL is the URL of either: |  1

Re: favicon

;d prefer to be able to simply >>> kick out people who have this misfeature enabled. >>> >> > > People actually use Konqueror? I'm having trouble finding any pageviews > from any of them. > > Anyway, I no longer need an answer to my question. I've worke

Re: favicon

Jay Garcia wrote: > > Ian Thomas wrote: > > > Chris Hoess wrote: > > > >> You can use Netcraft to look up the server type of any given website... > > > > > > > > Tried that already, the feature has been down for ages (at least for me). > > > > http://www.netcraft.com/whats/ redirects to > > http

Re: favicon

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Cramer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >Adam D. Moss wrote: > >> This is a valid argument direction but pales rather compared >> to (what is to me) the more fundamental fact that Mozilla supports >> the 'right' way to be doing this so has pittifully-little excuse >> to also

Re: favicon

enabled. >> > People actually use Konqueror? I'm having trouble finding any pageviews from any of them. Anyway, I no longer need an answer to my question. I've worked out a compromise for redirecting people who hit me with favicon requests from non-IE browsers (MS is simply too common to do anything about).

Re: favicon

Ian Thomas wrote: > Chris Hoess wrote: > >> You can use Netcraft to look up the server type of any given website... > > > > Tried that already, the feature has been down for ages (at least for me). > > http://www.netcraft.com/whats/ redirects to > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/ which g

Re: favicon

s is really offtopic but I thought I'd mention. With the latest > nightlies I notice some interesting things. Just go to the following sites > > - http://money.cnn.com > - http://www.ups.com > - http://www.vw.com > > All have Netscape logo as favicon. My guess is that Netsca

Re: favicon

On 11/17/2001 12:02 PM, Ian Thomas wrote: > Chris Hoess wrote: > > >>You can use Netcraft to look up the server type of any given >>website... >> > > > Tried that already, the feature has been down for ages (at least for me). > > http://www.netcraft.com/whats/ redirects to > http://uptime.

Re: favicon

Chris Hoess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Are you sure these sites are actually running a Netscape server? > Don't know about those, but timeless and I checked out 2 or 3 sites that > were doing that the other night, and they were all running NS Enterprise > Server. You can use Netcraft to loo

Re: favicon

Chris Hoess wrote: > You can use Netcraft to look up the server type of any given > website... Tried that already, the feature has been down for ages (at least for me). http://www.netcraft.com/whats/ redirects to http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/ which gives a 500 error. Ian (who has rem

Re: favicon

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, LemNet.com Support wrote: > > Hmm, interesting. If that is the case then its a strange thing for > Netscape to do. It makes the customers sites look worse and doesn't give > them much of an advantage. > > Are you sure these sites are actually running a Netscape

Re: favicon

Pratik wrote: > This is really offtopic but I thought I'd mention. With the latest > nightlies I notice some interesting things. Just go to the following sites > > - http://money.cnn.com > - http://www.ups.com > - http://www.vw.com > > All have Netscape logo

Re: favicon

Pratik wrote: > This is really offtopic but I thought I'd mention. With the latest > nightlies I notice some interesting things. Just go to the following sites > > - http://money.cnn.com > - http://www.ups.com > - http://www.vw.com > > All have Netscape logo

Re: favicon

Make sure you ban Konqueror too. :) dave ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Greg Miller wrote: > > I'm including blocking of future versions of Mozilla in the next > revision of my dynamic site code due to this issue (I don't have to > treat Mozilla any better than Mozilla treats my sites). I was wondering

Re: favicon

Greg Miller wrote: > > I'm including blocking of future versions of Mozilla in the next > revision of my dynamic site code due to this issue (I don't have to > treat Mozilla any better than Mozilla treats my sites). I was wondering > if there was any way to check (via JS or whatever) whether

Re: favicon

I'm including blocking of future versions of Mozilla in the next revision of my dynamic site code due to this issue (I don't have to treat Mozilla any better than Mozilla treats my sites). I was wondering if there was any way to check (via JS or whatever) whether a user had a specific pref ena

Re: favicon

David Hyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [quoting reordered by me] > Michael Nahrath wrote: > > > There is also a special bug about the fact that this is the wrong place, > > but Mr. Hyatt preferrs to ignore it (like a lot more bugs that deal with > > the UI-page-icons) and rather makes thing wo

Re: favicon

lot of ridiculous assumptions and accusations being >>made about the general architecture of the feature itself. If >>you're going to hurl inflammatory remarks in this newsgroup and/or >>make grossly inaccurate judgments based on incorrect assumptions >>about the archi

Re: favicon

ng to hurl inflammatory remarks in this newsgroup and/or > make grossly inaccurate judgments based on incorrect assumptions > about the architecture of the favicon feature, at least get your > facts straight. Is it possible to "make grossly inaccurate judgements based on incorrect assump

Re: favicon

show_bug.cgi?id=108823#c14> said to do. > For 0.9.6. Did you really read that bug as some sort of permanent capitulation? If so, I apologize, and perhaps should have been more clear. The favicon pref was disabled for 0.9.6, because I had not completed the work to implement the miss cache

Re: favicon

This is really offtopic but I thought I'd mention. With the latest nightlies I notice some interesting things. Just go to the following sites - http://money.cnn.com - http://www.ups.com - http://www.vw.com All have Netscape logo as favicon. My guess is that Netscape Enterprise serve

Re: favicon

Adam D. Moss wrote: > This is a valid argument direction but pales rather compared > to (what is to me) the more fundamental fact that Mozilla supports > the 'right' way to be doing this so has pittifully-little excuse > to also be supporting (*and* *thus* *encouraging*) the 'wrong' way > by defa

Re: favicon

That is simply not true. I agree with that bug completely, and the pref will be moved to the Navigator panel once that panel has been compacted to make room for the pref. It is only in Appearance temporarily, while we wait for the Navigator panel to undergo a redesign that will free up space

Re: favicon

>> A Scientific Wild-Ass Guess (SWAG) based on what I know about how the >> favicon system caches misses, the fact that most users close their >> browser when they are not using it, > > > Here you were assuming that the not-found cache is lost at the end of a >

Re: favicon

Adam D. Moss wrote: > Gervase Markham wrote: > [snip] > >>And adds a 400-byte error report to your log. >> > [snip] > > This is a valid argument direction but pales rather compared > to (what is to me) the more fundamental fact that Mozilla supports > the 'right' way to be doing this so has pit

Re: favicon

Gervase Markham wrote: [snip] > And adds a 400-byte error report to your log. [snip] This is a valid argument direction but pales rather compared to (what is to me) the more fundamental fact that Mozilla supports the 'right' way to be doing this so has pittifully-little excuse to also be supporti

Re: favicon

On 15/11/2001 at 22:16 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Adam D. Moss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Ben Bucksch wrote: >> > Gervase Markham wrote: >> > > - Fetching /favicon.ico from every site is bad >> > >> > Obviously, hyatt did *not* agree with that, at first. >> >> Or now, it seems. Flip-flop.

Re: favicon

Guess (SWAG) based on what I know about how the > favicon system caches misses, the fact that most users close their > browser when they are not using it, Here you were assuming that the not-found cache is lost at the end of a session. That's not the case. The XBL involved uses the d

Re: favicon

Brendan Eich wrote: >> Assume [...] that each Mozilla user's browser checks for the icon once >> a week - say once every 100 page loads. > > Why are you assuming any such thing? Evidence? A Scientific Wild-Ass Guess (SWAG) based on what I know about how the favic

Re: favicon

> Assume [...] that each Mozilla user's browser checks for the icon once > a week - say once every 100 page loads. Why are you assuming any such thing? Evidence? /be

Re: favicon

uest for /favicon.ico is something like what? 30 characters? Plus a > response about the same size (if you "touch favicon.ico")? And this > happens once per user? That's 3K worth of traffic. Add a 2K favicon and > you end up with 63K of traffic. And adds a 400-byte error rep

Re: favicon

> The problem here is not sites that have favicons but sites that dont. > Instead of proactively going and asking "hey do you have a favicon i can > use" for each and every web page you load, you ask it *only* when the > webpage that you load says, "hey load this fa

Re: favicon

is your oppinion about this? I think it's the wrong thing to do, rude and unnecessary. My view was that, with no releases in the next couple of months, it should have been left off in commercial and Mozilla to leave room for evangelism of the form of "If you add this tag, Mozilla

Re: favicon

response about the same size (if you "touch favicon.ico")? And this happens once per user? That's 3K worth of traffic. Add a 2K favicon and you end up with 63K of traffic. Instead, add based icons to every page of your site, all pointing to the same icon. The tag will amount to I

Re: favicon

I agree that this should *NOT* be turned on by default. For all of the reasons that everybody else has given. Not only do I *NOT* like having this feature forced upon me (I'd rather turn it on if I wanted it on) but, as somebody with their own Web site, I do *NOT* want to have to deal with meani

Re: favicon

I just want to support Ben Bucksch's position here. It would be very embarrassing for me to use such a build with bogus favicon requests for intranet access at work, since my boss is the webmaster (and he prefers NS4.7x).

Re: favicon

Ben Goodger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I see the /favicon.ico thing as a great convenience. I can define an > icon for my whole site in one hit, and then use to selectively > override it for certain pages. This, I believe, offers the most > flexibility one could possibly want. For the greate

Re: favicon

Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This feature was turned on by Dave Hyatt on the Mozilla trunk two days > ago, at 1am Pacific Time. > http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109843 > Gerv Gerv, what is your oppinion about this? Did they change your mind or did they ignore you?

Re: favicon

Pratik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with you. All the bug reports/ng postingsthat I've read have > said tyhat this is a hidden prefwhich just got turned on. My question > is, what do I add to user.js/prefs.js to turn it OFF? More interesting: A little piece of XPI is needed to turn th

Re: favicon

> Strongly seconded here (wearing my webmaster and evangelism hats). This feature was turned on by Dave Hyatt on the Mozilla trunk two days ago, at 1am Pacific Time. http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109843 http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsview2.cgi?diff_mode=context&whitespace_mode=show&s

Re: favicon

On 11/15/01 09:30 AM, Ben Bucksch wrote: > I am unhappy to inform you that David Hyatt sneaked in* a change to the > default pref so that /favicon.ico is now retrieved by default, see bug > 109843 (but please comment here). This is contrary to what he previously >

Re: favicon

I am unhappy to inform you that David Hyatt sneaked in* a change to the default pref so that /favicon.ico is now retrieved by default, see bug 109843 (but please comment here). This is contrary to what he previously said to do. *"sneaked

Re: favicon

Ben Bucksch wrote: > Gervase Markham wrote: > > - Fetching /favicon.ico from every site is bad > > Obviously, hyatt did *not* agree with that, at first. Or now, it seems. Flip-flop. See bug 109843: Further discussion should really remain he

Re: favicon

Robert O'Callahan wrote: > For the record, I'm strongly AGAINST trying to fetch /favicon.ico, > mostly for reasons that have already been discussed. It's just wrong > --- given that we have the method --- and in this case the > benefit of supporting the wrong thing is totally marginal. Strongly

Re: favicon

Ben Goodger wrote: > If you're with a hosting provider where you don't have your own > domain, you're probably already subjected to other, ruder forms of > intrusion, such as popup windows or ad banners. Nonsense. Many organizations give their "customers" homepages without domain. Many better

Re: favicon

Ben Goodger wrote: > we're simply exploiting files many websites have placed for the > benefit of IE for another purpose. I don't see how that fits the > definition of "cloning." We use the same broken way to retrieve icons for web sites that MSIE uses. Our *usage* of them is even worse than

Re: favicon

Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote: > I agree with the above statement. But making a clone of a browser none > of use can stand is not the way to do it. We're not cloning IE. IE doesn't show site icons next to the location field. I don't know that we even show site icons in *bookmarks* yet, meani

Re: favicon

Matthew Thomas wrote: > Having to insert href="http://www.microsoft.com/your/browser/spams/me/for/favicon.ico";> > in every page on my site, so as to avoid all my pages getting the icon > of my Web hosting provider (who I have no semantic relationship with > whatsoever), means that I am having t

Re: mozilla.org favicon

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 14 Nov 2001: > > That is awesome. I never knew that Mozilla had full PNG support! > This is something I have wanted for a long time. The fact that it > looks so crappy in IE is just a perk. ;) I have IE6 installed, and I c

  1   2   >