Nigel Poncewattle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 16 Dec 2001:
> DeMoN LaG <n@a> wrote in > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: > >> Wait a second... AOL wants to have market share and some type of >> control over the internet. Designing a browser that pisses off >> webmasters makes them code to IE only so they don't deal with >> browsers that annoy them. How does pissing off webmasters play >> into AOL's business plan? > > How would these bug fixes piss off webmasters and make them code to > IE only? Or is that your point? These rushed bug fixes make > Netscape work more like IE's busted behavior. > I'm saying something like autofetching /favicon.ico for no apparent reason from every domain I visit. Webmasters don't want to pay for that bandwith, and they don't want to see a bunch of /favicon.ico 404 in their logs. If AOL wants to gain a large amount of market share, they aren't going to do it by making everyone hate their browsers dumb practices. I see no reason why Mozilla should automatically ask for a file. The way I always thought a browser worked was I said "Get me http://www.maxreboot.com";, the browser fetched maxreboot.com/index.html (or whatever the server sends me), and drew out the page based on the HTML. Not the browser getting a page, and saying "Hey, no where at all is this mentioned, but I think I'll go look for another file that probably doesn't even exist!" That's completely wrong, and it's bad behavior. Browsers render web pages, they do not make decisions about what content to download for me, and without asking me. I wish there were a way to turn this favicon.ico crap off entirely -- ICQ: N/A (temporarily) AIM: FlyersR1 9 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ = m
