|
|
Posted by Andy Dingley on 03/20/07 11:16
On 20 Mar, 08:42, Neredbojias <inva...@example.com> wrote:
> Eh? The "inventor" defines the "correctness" without adjustment of
> progress or evolution?
There is no standard for favicon, largely because M$oft won't play
ball. The web is built by layering one simple standard on top of
another. M$oft's half-baked implementation of favicon broke existing
standards in at least 3 ways, so it's just not possible to integrate
it into the grand scheme of things. (From memory, these are: insisting
on a fixed URL location within a site for the icon document, using a
magic name for the rel atribute that had forbidden spaces in it, and
using an icon format that didn't have a defined MIME type (easily
fixed)).
Some smart puppy should go and draft an RFC for favicon with a clever
backwards-compatible method for making it work transparently in both
worlds. As that's beyond this bear's little brain, even a clear
documentation of the existing position would be worthwhile. However
trying to bring M$oft to heel is a thankless task and usually asking
for your work to be dumped on by them in the next release.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|