In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Cramer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >Adam D. Moss wrote: > >> This is a valid argument direction but pales rather compared >> to (what is to me) the more fundamental fact that Mozilla supports >> the 'right' way to be doing this so has pittifully-little excuse >> to also be supporting (*and* *thus* *encouraging*) the 'wrong' way >> by default. > > >I guess that depends on how you define 'wrong'. Obviously the >'wrongness' of this way of doing things is not universally accepted. > >--Mike >
I would say that an end-user client requesting a file that does not exist, and that file not being part of any standard HTTP as documented by the w3c spec wrong. At least now I know what that crap in my server logs actually is. It never seemed worth researching much until reading this thread. I hope that mozilla goes the route of not requesting a favicon.ico file, but rather giving control to the content providers via the link attribute. Using png's is a great bonus. True transparency is nice. 16x16 16 color gifs are worthless for conveying any form or information (although /. does a nice job with theirs) -- Greg Spath [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://freefall.homeip.net irc://freefall.homeip.net/%23mtb
