|
Posted by Steve Pugh on November 22, 2004, 7:42 pm
Please log in for more thread options
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:20:29 GMT, "D. Stussy"
>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Steve Pugh wrote:
>>
>> Can you name one browser that treats "shortcut" and "icon" as
>> different?
>
>I don't claim to have experience with ALL browsers that exist.
I understand, but where did your original statement come from?
>Can you identify a formal specification that says that these ARE identical?
No, there is no formal sdpecification for these, or indeed all but a
very few possible values of rel/rev in link elements.
> 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 only definition I know of is the MS one that defines "shortcut
icon" as a seemingly singular entity.
The behaviour in Opera and Gecko seems to be a logical extension of
that that attempts to reconcile the existing practice with the
standard.
I accept that your approach is also a logical extension but it is not
one that seems to supported by actual practice.
>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?
Spot on. MS made a mistake. Defining rel="icon" would have been
simpler. It could have been worse - <body icon="favicon.ico"> or
<icon src="favicon.src"> for example.
Steve
|
|
Posted by D. Stussy on November 29, 2004, 2:51 am
Please log in for more thread options
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Steve Pugh wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:20:29 GMT, "D. Stussy"
> >On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Steve Pugh wrote:
> >>
> >> Can you name one browser that treats "shortcut" and "icon" as
> >> different?
> >
> >I don't claim to have experience with ALL browsers that exist.
>
> I understand, but where did your original statement come from?
>
> >Can you identify a formal specification that says that these ARE identical?
>
> No, there is no formal sdpecification for these, or indeed all but a
> very few possible values of rel/rev in link elements.
Exactly my point: Without a formal specification that equates these two
things, there is no way that anyone can conclude that they are in fact the same
- especially when different client programs react to them differently
(including ignoring one or the other but not both).
> > 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 only definition I know of is the MS one that defines "shortcut
> icon" as a seemingly singular entity.
One source often does not make an exhaustive definition. Have you searched for
other sources of information, like "www.favicon.org" (e.g.)?
> The behaviour in Opera and Gecko seems to be a logical extension of
> that that attempts to reconcile the existing practice with the
> standard.
>
> I accept that your approach is also a logical extension but it is not
> one that seems to supported by actual practice.
>
> >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?
>
> Spot on. MS made a mistake. Defining rel="icon" would have been
> simpler. It could have been worse - <body icon="favicon.ico"> or
> <icon src="favicon.src"> for example.
|
|
Posted by Steve Pugh on November 29, 2004, 9:08 am
Please log in for more thread options On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 01:51:45 GMT, "D. Stussy"
>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Steve Pugh wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:20:29 GMT, "D. Stussy"
>> >On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Steve Pugh wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Can you name one browser that treats "shortcut" and "icon" as
>> >> different?
>> >
>> >I don't claim to have experience with ALL browsers that exist.
>>
>> I understand, but where did your original statement come from?
>>
>> >Can you identify a formal specification that says that these ARE identical?
>>
>> No, there is no formal sdpecification for these, or indeed all but a
>> very few possible values of rel/rev in link elements.
>
>Exactly my point: Without a formal specification that equates these two
>things, there is no way that anyone can conclude that they are in fact the same
>- especially when different client programs react to them differently
>(including ignoring one or the other but not both).
And the reverse: Without a formal specification that differentates
between the two, there is no way that anyone can conclude that they
are in fact different. Lack of support for one variation can't be
taken as proof that it means something different from the other
variation, just that it isn't supported.
You still haven't demonstrated that any user agents does anything
different with them. Your original claim that one was used for the
address bar and one was used for the bookmarks is still
unsubstantiated.
So they can't be shown to be the same, and they can't be shown to be
different. So please let it die.
>> > 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 only definition I know of is the MS one that defines "shortcut
>> icon" as a seemingly singular entity.
>
>One source often does not make an exhaustive definition.
It does if its the only definition in existence.
The Mozilla release notes for the version that first supported icons
linked to the MSDN page.
> Have you searched for
>other sources of information, like "www.favicon.org" (e.g.)?
Um, why post the URL of some spam directory? I suppose you might have
meant http://www.favicon.com but (a) that merely documents existing
browser behaviour (i.e. it's just as authorative as this thread) and
(b) it's out of date.
Steve
|
|
Posted by D. Stussy on November 29, 2004, 9:31 am
Please log in for more thread options On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Steve Pugh wrote:
> >On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Steve Pugh wrote:
> >> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:20:29 GMT, "D. Stussy"
> >> >On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Steve Pugh wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Can you name one browser that treats "shortcut" and "icon" as
> >> >> different?
> >> >
> >> >I don't claim to have experience with ALL browsers that exist.
> >>
> >> I understand, but where did your original statement come from?
> >>
> >> >Can you identify a formal specification that says that these ARE identical?
> >>
> >> No, there is no formal sdpecification for these, or indeed all but a
> >> very few possible values of rel/rev in link elements.
> >
> >Exactly my point: Without a formal specification that equates these two
> >things, there is no way that anyone can conclude that they are in fact the
same
> >- especially when different client programs react to them differently
> >(including ignoring one or the other but not both).
>
> And the reverse: Without a formal specification that differentates
> between the two, there is no way that anyone can conclude that they
> are in fact different. Lack of support for one variation can't be
> taken as proof that it means something different from the other
> variation, just that it isn't supported.
>
> You still haven't demonstrated that any user agents does anything
> different with them. Your original claim that one was used for the
> address bar and one was used for the bookmarks is still
> unsubstantiated.
>
> So they can't be shown to be the same, and they can't be shown to be
> different. So please let it die.
I am willing to let it die, but I also don't see you think I have the burden of
proof.
> >> > 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 only definition I know of is the MS one that defines "shortcut
> >> icon" as a seemingly singular entity.
> >
> >One source often does not make an exhaustive definition.
>
> It does if its the only definition in existence.
It's not.
> The Mozilla release notes for the version that first supported icons
> linked to the MSDN page.
>
> > Have you searched for
> >other sources of information, like "www.favicon.org" (e.g.)?
>
> Um, why post the URL of some spam directory? I suppose you might have
> meant http://www.favicon.com but (a) that merely documents existing
> browser behaviour (i.e. it's just as authorative as this thread) and
> (b) it's out of date.
Why would spam help here?
|
|
Posted by Steve Pugh on November 30, 2004, 7:25 pm
Please log in for more thread options On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:31:57 GMT, "D. Stussy"
>On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Steve Pugh wrote:
>
>> You still haven't demonstrated that any user agents does anything
>> different with them. Your original claim that one was used for the
>> address bar and one was used for the bookmarks is still
>> unsubstantiated.
>>
>> So they can't be shown to be the same, and they can't be shown to be
>> different. So please let it die.
>
>I am willing to let it die,
Happily.
>but I also don't see you think I have the burden of
>proof.
Sorry, I can't parse that sentence. Was there meant to be a 'why' in
there? In which case the answer is because you made the original claim
and haven't offered anything to back it up.
>> > Have you searched for
>> >other sources of information, like "www.favicon.org" (e.g.)?
>>
>> Um, why post the URL of some spam directory?
>
>Why would spam help here?
I don't know. You're the one who posted the link to a spammy type
directory. I guess you misremembered the URL and didn't check it
before posting.
Steve
|
| 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