> It's amazing how much anger this feature is generating. Particularly
> since it amounts to giving content providers *MORE* control over the
> presentation of their content than HTML allows directly without breaking
> HTML, HTTP, or anything else.
I don't think anybody is getting angry over the <LINK> tag, which
only produces traffic when the Web designer wants it. The objection
is over the default use of the client asking for favicon.ico which may
or may not exist. The client should be a way of viewing what a Web
site is publishing. It shouldn't be something that "impolitely" SPAMs
a site with spurious requests that have no basis in the code on the
site itself.
Jason.
