On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 09:29:00PM +0100, Rob Bradford wrote:
> > > I was looking at #130325 when I realized that favicon.ico was not
> > > displayed for www.debian.org. So here comes a patch to solve this
> > > problem.
> >
> > > --- header.wml Sun Oct 13 22:09:51 2002
> > > +++ header.wml.new Sun Oct 13 22:11:49 2002
> > > @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
> > > <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=$(CHARSET)"
> > > />
> > > <title>$(BARETITLE:*Debian GNU/Linux -- )$(title)</title>
> > > <link rev="made" href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" />
> > > +<link rel="Shortcut Icon" href="$(HOME)/favicon.ico" />
> > > <meta name="Description" content="$(SUMMARY:-<blurb/>)" />
> > > <meta name="Keywords" content="<keywords/>" />
> > > <meta name="Language" content="$(CUR_LANG)" />
> >
> > I object, this adds a bunch of more bytes to all web pages, and it's rather
> > unnecessary.
>
> I completely agree. If this gets added to standard, then Josip i think you
> should rethink your stance. However until that time different browsers do
> different things. None of which can be called the Right Thing (tm).
>
> For example some expect ico format, others png. Some try to download them,
> others look for the meta header. The whole situation is a mess that needs
> clarification.
Oh, I feel that the whole concept of favicon is unnecessary, I don't
particularly care about the implementation. Even if W3C adds this to
XHTML 5.0 or something, we aren't using that standard. :)
And then there's the usual retort that can be applied for almost anything --
it's easy to go around adding silly little cosmetic things like this, but
there's many more serious things on the web pages that we should fix
instead. :o)
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
