|
Posted by D. Stussy on November 15, 2004, 10:52 am
Please log in for more thread options
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Crom wrote:
> Ok. I want to settle this once and for all. After looking at the source
> for various, rather sizeable (but not all were so big) web sites that
> use icons that show up in the addressbar beside the address itself.
>
> Just about all websites that use said icons use one of these two methods
> (some use both even) to make them appear (in the code of a webpage.) :
>
> <LINK REL="icon" HREF="/icon.ico" TYPE="image/ico">
> <LINK REL="SHORTCUT ICON" HREF="/icon.ico">
>
> My question is this. Is one of these methods more correct (or standard)
> ? Is it better to use both, or jsut one of these? Is there maybe another
> method??
That is NOT a choice between two methods. Those statements do different
things. There are TWO icons which are controlled.
The top line controls the graphic that appears next to the URL when actually
viewing the page. This is the one you are asking about.
The bottom line controls the graphic that appears in the favorites/bookmarks
listing next to the page/item name (taken from the title, but user changable).
You didn't ask about this one, and in many cases, it will default to be the
same as the first, but it is possible to have DIFFERENT graphics in the list as
compared to when viewing the page.
If one of these doesn't exist, then the "favicon.ico" (default name) file may
be grabbed in place of the missing one [as mentioned in someone else's reply]
by the user's browser. The browser may look in the current directory or any
[accessible] directory above it, up to the document root, or it may look
nowhere, for such a file.
|
|
Posted by Steve Pugh on November 15, 2004, 11:54 am
Please log in for more thread options
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:52:38 GMT, "D. Stussy"
>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Crom wrote:
>> Ok. I want to settle this once and for all. After looking at the source
>> for various, rather sizeable (but not all were so big) web sites that
>> use icons that show up in the addressbar beside the address itself.
>>
>> Just about all websites that use said icons use one of these two methods
>> (some use both even) to make them appear (in the code of a webpage.) :
>>
>> <LINK REL="icon" HREF="/icon.ico" TYPE="image/ico">
>> <LINK REL="SHORTCUT ICON" HREF="/icon.ico">
Capitalisation doesn't matter and type is optional, so the only real
differences between these two is the value of the rel attribute.
>> My question is this. Is one of these methods more correct (or standard)
>> ? Is it better to use both, or jsut one of these? Is there maybe another
>> method??
>
>That is NOT a choice between two methods. Those statements do different
>things. There are TWO icons which are controlled.
This is news to me.
Microsoft invented rel="shortcut icon" either withour realising, or
choosing to ignore, the fact that the rel attribute takes a space
separate list of values. So rel="shortcut icon" is the same as
rel="shortcut" and rel="icon" and rel="icon shortcut"
(MS aren't alone on making thise mistake, see the W3C and
rel="alternatie stylesheet").
AFAIK IE still only supports rel="shortcut icon" not any of the
alterntive formulations.
>The top line controls the graphic that appears next to the URL when actually
>viewing the page. This is the one you are asking about.
>
>The bottom line controls the graphic that appears in the favorites/bookmarks
>listing next to the page/item name (taken from the title, but user changable).
>You didn't ask about this one, and in many cases, it will default to be the
>same as the first, but it is possible to have DIFFERENT graphics in the list as
>compared to when viewing the page.
Have you got a URL that demonstrates this?
http://steve.pugh.net/test/test85.html
contains the following:
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="red.ico">
<link rel="shortcut" href="green.ico">
<link rel="icon" href="blue.ico">
<link rel="icon shortcut" href="black.ico">
Opera 7.54 shows a blue icon in the address bar and my site's default
favicon in the bookmarks (this seems to be an Opera bug).
Firefox 1.0 and Mozilla 1.7 show the black icon in the address bar and
nothing in the bookmarks (does Gecko ever show icons in the
bookmarks?).
IE6 shows the red icon the favorites and nothing in the address bar
(as expected).
So if you meant that you can make different browsers show different
icons in different places then I agree. But apart from Opera (and that
seems to be buggy in this respect) I can't get any individual browser
to show different icons in the different places.
To the OP, use rel="shortcut icon" for widest cross browser
compatability. It's the only thing that IE supports and is also
supported by all other browsers that support icons.
Steve
|
|
Posted by D. Stussy on November 22, 2004, 8:05 am
Please log in for more thread options On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Steve Pugh wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:52:38 GMT, "D. Stussy"
> >On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Crom wrote:
> >> Ok. I want to settle this once and for all. After looking at the source
> >> for various, rather sizeable (but not all were so big) web sites that
> >> use icons that show up in the addressbar beside the address itself.
> >>
> >> Just about all websites that use said icons use one of these two methods
> >> (some use both even) to make them appear (in the code of a webpage.) :
> >>
> >> <LINK REL="icon" HREF="/icon.ico" TYPE="image/ico">
> >> <LINK REL="SHORTCUT ICON" HREF="/icon.ico">
>
> Capitalisation doesn't matter and type is optional, so the only real
> differences between these two is the value of the rel attribute.
>
> >> My question is this. Is one of these methods more correct (or standard)
> >> ? Is it better to use both, or jsut one of these? Is there maybe another
> >> method??
> >
> >That is NOT a choice between two methods. Those statements do different
> >things. There are TWO icons which are controlled.
>
> This is news to me.
>
> Microsoft invented rel="shortcut icon" either withour realising, or
> choosing to ignore, the fact that the rel attribute takes a space
> separate list of values. So rel="shortcut icon" is the same as
> rel="shortcut" and rel="icon" and rel="icon shortcut"
It's still defining TWO separate things, even if, per you, the names are
slightly different - i.e. "shortcut" and "icon" instead of "icon" and "shortcut
icon".
> (MS aren't alone on making thise mistake, see the W3C and
> rel="alternatie stylesheet").
>
> AFAIK IE still only supports rel="shortcut icon" not any of the
> alterntive formulations.
>
> >The top line controls the graphic that appears next to the URL when actually
> >viewing the page. This is the one you are asking about.
> >
> >The bottom line controls the graphic that appears in the favorites/bookmarks
> >listing next to the page/item name (taken from the title, but user changable).
> >You didn't ask about this one, and in many cases, it will default to be the
> >same as the first, but it is possible to have DIFFERENT graphics in the list
as
> >compared to when viewing the page.
>
> Have you got a URL that demonstrates this?
>
> http://steve.pugh.net/test/test85.html
> contains the following:
> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="red.ico">
> <link rel="shortcut" href="green.ico">
> <link rel="icon" href="blue.ico">
> <link rel="icon shortcut" href="black.ico">
>
> Opera 7.54 shows a blue icon in the address bar and my site's default
> favicon in the bookmarks (this seems to be an Opera bug).
>
> Firefox 1.0 and Mozilla 1.7 show the black icon in the address bar and
> nothing in the bookmarks (does Gecko ever show icons in the
> bookmarks?).
>
> IE6 shows the red icon the favorites and nothing in the address bar
> (as expected).
I have had different results with IE6. Icons do show in the address bar.
However, I haven't tried that with your test. Icons also disappear from the
favorites list as they get purged from the cache.
As you noted in your investigation, a URL by itself is insufficient to see if
different icons show up in the address/location area vs. the
bookmarks/favorites area. It's client program dependent also.
> So if you meant that you can make different browsers show different
> icons in different places then I agree. But apart from Opera (and that
> seems to be buggy in this respect) I can't get any individual browser
> to show different icons in the different places.
Remember that clients need not implement all features of HTML directives. That
doesn't mean that the directives, if not ignored, wouldn't produce the result I
stated they could.
> To the OP, use rel="shortcut icon" for widest cross browser
> compatability. It's the only thing that IE supports and is also
> supported by all other browsers that support icons.
|
|
Posted by Steve Pugh on November 22, 2004, 9:03 am
Please log in for more thread options On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:05:29 GMT, "D. Stussy"
>On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Steve Pugh wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:52:38 GMT, "D. Stussy"
>> >On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Crom wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <LINK REL="icon" HREF="/icon.ico" TYPE="image/ico">
>> >> <LINK REL="SHORTCUT ICON" HREF="/icon.ico">
>> >
>> >That is NOT a choice between two methods. Those statements do different
>> >things. There are TWO icons which are controlled.
>>
>> This is news to me.
>>
>> Microsoft invented rel="shortcut icon" either withour realising, or
>> choosing to ignore, the fact that the rel attribute takes a space
>> separate list of values. So rel="shortcut icon" is the same as
>> rel="shortcut" and rel="icon" and rel="icon shortcut"
>
>It's still defining TWO separate things, even if, per you, the names are
>slightly different - i.e. "shortcut" and "icon" instead of "icon" and "shortcut
>icon".
Yes in theory, but MS didn't define what "shortcut" and "icon" are.
Other browsers have expanded this and support the solo versions as
equivalancies to the original MS version and Gecko also supports the
reversed combination, again as an equivalent. In other words they've
taken "shortcut" and "icon" to mean the same thing.
Can you name one browser that treats "shortcut" and "icon" as
different?
>> >The top line controls the graphic that appears next to the URL when actually
>> >viewing the page. This is the one you are asking about.
>> >
>> >The bottom line controls the graphic that appears in the favorites/bookmarks
>> >listing next to the page/item name (taken from the title, but user
changable).
>> >You didn't ask about this one, and in many cases, it will default to be the
>> >same as the first, but it is possible to have DIFFERENT graphics in the list
as
>> >compared to when viewing the page.
>>
>> Have you got a URL that demonstrates this?
>>
>> http://steve.pugh.net/test/test85.html
>> contains the following:
>> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="red.ico">
>> <link rel="shortcut" href="green.ico">
>> <link rel="icon" href="blue.ico">
>> <link rel="icon shortcut" href="black.ico">
>>
>> Opera 7.54 shows a blue icon in the address bar and my site's default
>> favicon in the bookmarks (this seems to be an Opera bug).
>>
>> Firefox 1.0 and Mozilla 1.7 show the black icon in the address bar and
>> nothing in the bookmarks (does Gecko ever show icons in the
>> bookmarks?).
>>
>> IE6 shows the red icon the favorites and nothing in the address bar
>> (as expected).
>
>I have had different results with IE6. Icons do show in the address bar.
If you return to the site after you've added it to your favorites then
the same icon will appear in the address bar. Sometimes it happens
when you return in the same browser session, sometimes you need to
restart the browser first, IE is inconsistent. But IE never uses any
icon other than the one defined witrh "shortcut icon".
>As you noted in your investigation, a URL by itself is insufficient to see if
>different icons show up in the address/location area vs. the
>bookmarks/favorites area. It's client program dependent also.
Can you give an example of any URL which when viewed in any browser
uses icons defined in different <link> elements in different places?
Tha's all I'm asking you for. If you can't then I have to remain very
sceptical about your original claim.
Steve
|
|
Posted by D. Stussy on November 22, 2004, 11:20 am
Please log in for more thread options On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Steve Pugh wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:05:29 GMT, "D. Stussy"
> >On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Steve Pugh wrote:
> >> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:52:38 GMT, "D. Stussy"
> >> >On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Crom wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> <LINK REL="icon" HREF="/icon.ico" TYPE="image/ico">
> >> >> <LINK REL="SHORTCUT ICON" HREF="/icon.ico">
> >> >
> >> >That is NOT a choice between two methods. Those statements do different
> >> >things. There are TWO icons which are controlled.
> >>
> >> This is news to me.
> >>
> >> Microsoft invented rel="shortcut icon" either withour realising, or
> >> choosing to ignore, the fact that the rel attribute takes a space
> >> separate list of values. So rel="shortcut icon" is the same as
> >> rel="shortcut" and rel="icon" and rel="icon shortcut"
> >
> >It's still defining TWO separate things, even if, per you, the names are
> >slightly different - i.e. "shortcut" and "icon" instead of "icon" and
"shortcut
> >icon".
>
> Yes in theory, but MS didn't define what "shortcut" and "icon" are.
>
> Other browsers have expanded this and support the solo versions as
> equivalancies to the original MS version and Gecko also supports the
> reversed combination, again as an equivalent. In other words they've
> taken "shortcut" and "icon" to mean the same thing.
>
> Can you name one browser that treats "shortcut" and "icon" as
> different?
I don't claim to have experience with ALL browsers that exist.
Can you identify a formal specification that says that these ARE identical? I
have yet to see a specification (even an informal one) that officially defines
these terms. They started as a hack, and they are still a hack; they're just
more common now. None of the informal definitions ever say that they are
identical, and by saying that both forms should be present, imply that they are
not.
> >> >The top line controls the graphic that appears next to the URL when
actually
> >> >viewing the page. This is the one you are asking about.
> >> >
> >> >The bottom line controls the graphic that appears in the
favorites/bookmarks
> >> >listing next to the page/item name (taken from the title, but user
changable).
> >> >You didn't ask about this one, and in many cases, it will default to be the
> >> >same as the first, but it is possible to have DIFFERENT graphics in the
list as
> >> >compared to when viewing the page.
> >>
> >> Have you got a URL that demonstrates this?
> >>
> >> http://steve.pugh.net/test/test85.html
> >> contains the following:
> >> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="red.ico">
> >> <link rel="shortcut" href="green.ico">
> >> <link rel="icon" href="blue.ico">
> >> <link rel="icon shortcut" href="black.ico">
> >>
> >> Opera 7.54 shows a blue icon in the address bar and my site's default
> >> favicon in the bookmarks (this seems to be an Opera bug).
> >>
> >> Firefox 1.0 and Mozilla 1.7 show the black icon in the address bar and
> >> nothing in the bookmarks (does Gecko ever show icons in the
> >> bookmarks?).
> >>
> >> IE6 shows the red icon the favorites and nothing in the address bar
> >> (as expected).
> >
> >I have had different results with IE6. Icons do show in the address bar.
>
> If you return to the site after you've added it to your favorites then
> the same icon will appear in the address bar. Sometimes it happens
> when you return in the same browser session, sometimes you need to
> restart the browser first, IE is inconsistent. But IE never uses any
> icon other than the one defined witrh "shortcut icon".
>
> >As you noted in your investigation, a URL by itself is insufficient to see if
> >different icons show up in the address/location area vs. the
> >bookmarks/favorites area. It's client program dependent also.
>
> Can you give an example of any URL which when viewed in any browser
> uses icons defined in different <link> elements in different places?
> Tha's all I'm asking you for. If you can't then I have to remain very
> sceptical about your original claim.
That's fine, but can you prove that such a program doesn't exist? Nor do I
claim to even know 100% of all the client programs out there that interpret
HTML.
Is it your position that the reason there are two different forms of this is
NOT to address these different usages but for some other reason, including a
mistake by Micro$oft and/or other software providers?
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | IE 6 and favicons | May 11, 2005, 10:00 pm |
| address bar icons | August 5, 2004, 10:40 pm |
| Using Icons As Images | June 30, 2005, 9:14 am |
| >> Quick question about Favicons | July 19, 2004, 4:18 pm |
| IExplorer Image Icons off | October 21, 2004, 3:06 pm |
| changing icons of sites on favourites menu | October 21, 2004, 10:19 pm |
| How can I replace a large image with other large images triggered from small image icons, mouse-overs or whatever??? | July 26, 2004, 1:34 am |
| Is this website ok | May 13, 2006, 1:04 am |
| How is this website made???? | August 26, 2004, 6:30 am |
| Get all Link from a Website | November 18, 2004, 2:51 pm |
|
XML Sitemap