Closed mathiasbynens closed 10 years ago
Thanks for submitting this :)
I noticed an inconsistency that I'm curious to hear your and others' thoughts about:
You say that shortcut icon
is "considered harmful" because it:
a. "doesn’t show up in section 4.12.5 of the HTML5 specification on ‘link types’" b. is "proprietary to Internet Explorer".
By the same reasoning, isn't relying implicitly on the name apple-touch-icon-precomposed
just as harmful because it:
a. doesn't show up in HTML5 specification section 4.12.5.5, Link type "icon" (only /favicon.ico is mentioned) b. is proprietary to Apple
@mathiasbynens Really sorry to bother you about this. I genuinely do want to collaborate and have a lot of respect for all that you've done in this area, so your thoughts would be much appreciated.
I've been following the HTML5 Boilerplate and leaving out the favicon link all together. The favicon is picked up automatically, but I do use an .ico and .png in my root directory to cover both scenarios. Works on all browsers -even IE8. :thumbsup:
@audreyr
By the same reasoning, isn't relying implicitly on the name apple-touch-icon-precomposed just as harmful […]
Yes. The difference is that for favicon.ico
you don’t need the HTML anyway, so it’s a no-brainer. For touch icons, you do (if you want broad support, at least).
@grayghostvisuals “Both scenarios”? Simply placing a /favicon.ico
on the server enables the favicon in every browser.
@mathiasbynens I guess I'm just being OCD for those that won't display a .png
. I have noticed most of our current browsers support .png
favicons w/out the link ref and honestly it's a bit easier to make a .png
over an .ico
.
Start @ 2:42 http://css-tricks.com/video-screencasts/122-the-state-of-favicons/
@mathiasbynens Okay, thanks. This pull request to stop recommending HTML for the main favicon is generally good. I can merge this in if you:
apple-touch-icon-precomposed
bit, since it conflicts with the sections below. (Happy to discuss this in a separate pull request, but let's keep things atomic in this "Recommend not to use any HTML for the main favicon" pull request)Again, I like this overall. But I know this is a lot to ask, so if you don't have time to resubmit, I can make the changes and credit you as the git commit author.
@grayghostvisuals I think it's actually better to provide only favicon.ico
and not favicon.png
:
.ico
is a container for multiple .bmp
or .png
files. If you specify 1 default favicon.png
, and if that favicon.png
overrides the favicon.ico
, you are giving up control over how the favicon looks at different resolutions and allowing the browser to do all resizing. For example, you might want the 64x64 version to contain text and the 16x16 version to not display the text at all, since at 16x16 it would be unreadable anyway.favicon.png
in the HTML5 specification, just /favicon.ico
. From http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/links.html#rel-icon:
I won’t have time for this so feel free to edit my changes as you like! (Also I’m not really familiar with RST. So awkward compared to Markdown!)
Add a bulleted list of what browsers "every relevant desktop browser" refers to
Every browser/version all the way back to IE6, except for SeaMonkey. (It has a setting for /favicon.ico
that is disabled by default, as explained in the post.)
Cool, thanks @mathiasbynens, really appreciate everything!
Just FYI this is merged but I'm still working on formatting. I may have to move this to Markdown like you said.
@audreyr Thanks :beers:
See http://mathiasbynens.be/notes/rel-shortcut-icon.
Also, recommend default file names for touch icons, as per http://mathiasbynens.be/notes/touch-icons.