Peter Trudelle wrote: > Yes, we care. Don't confuse having different values than yours with > not caring. The feature you seem to dislike so much started as > numerous requests from our customers, users and reviewers. Our > marketing department notified us of the strong demand for such a > feature. Management ensured that it was properly planned, and approved > spending time and money on it. Engineering designed and implemented > it. QA wrote test plans for it, and is testing it. > > One benefit is that users can tell, at a glance, the current site, and > which site such bookmarks came from, much faster than they could ever > read the URL. They can thus browse faster and with fewer errors. > Hopefully, that will lead to more of them choosing our browser, which > means more visitors to our web properties, and more advertising and > other revenue for Netscape and AOL. > AOL also benefits from having more people using any mozilla-based > browser, since that gives web authors more reason not to knuckle under > and let Microsoft own the web. Obviously, we all benefit from that. > This is why we need to build mozilla for the masses. > > Peter > > Jonathan Wilson wrote: > >> From what I have seen with things like favicon.ico and other things >> not really. >> Accually, its probobly more like this: >> The engineers and coders do care about the browser and want to make >> it better (no, reading favicon.ico when first loading the page even >> if not asked to by the user with no way to turn it off is not better) >> But on the other hand, we have the managers and marketing department >> plus the people at AOLTW that seem not to care about the product >> known as mozilla and also as netscape 6. What I dont understand is >> just what AOLTW or netscape corp accually gains out of this >> favicon.ico thing. > > >
I understand that loading favicon.ico for bookmarks is accually a good thing but why load favicon.ico on page load, what benifit does it have (other than displaying a pretty little icon in the URL bar?)
