On Wed, 28 May 2008 13:07:50 +0100, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm afraid that this could cause trouble (every visitor downloading icon
that's 20–300 times larger than typical favicon). Why not use
rel=application-icon or rel=appicon?
I don't understand the question.
<link rel=icon> is currently used for favicons. Favicons are expected to
be small (in byte size). Current browsers always download favicons on
every website.
If page author adds high-quality image using rel=icon (like Vista's 100KB
icon or Leopard's 300KB monstrosity), it may significantly increase site's
traffic (these icons will be downloaded by every visitor rather than only
those who create a shortcut).
e.g.:
<link rel=icon sizes=16x16 href=tinyicon.png>
<link rel=icon sizes=256x256 href=hugeicon.ico>
In current browsers this will not work as expected - browsers will
download the big application icon, which is going to be order of magnitude
larger (in byte size) than a favicon.
Using rel=application-icon instead of rel=icon would avoid this problem.
Another solution would be to suggest that authors specify favicon as last
in the tree order (example it the spec lists favicon first).
--
regards, Kornel Lesiński
