David Hyatt wrote: >> Some people are even blocking Mozilla from their sites because of this! >> Mozilla's way of doing this spams servers much more than IE's, since Moz >> request favicon.ico for every visit (IE only does it when the page is >> bookmarked).
> > As I've said several times before, Mozilla does not spam the site on > every visit, only on the first visit. It then caches information of a > miss to prevent spamming the site again (and this persists across > sessions), and on a hit it caches the favicon itself to > prevent spamming the site again (this also persists acros sessions). > Favicons are always requested in such a way that the caches are > checked first, so validation doesn't occur. You're right. Bad wording. With "every visit" I didn't mean that it requests the file every time you visit the page, just that it requests it the first time you visit the page whether you bookmark it or not. IE only requests favicon.ico when you bookmark the page (unless there's a <link rel="shortcut icon"/>), so Moz still requests it much more often than IE. Still, that doesn't answer my question - why not just evangelise sites to use <link rel="icon">? (You _do_ agree that in an ideal world, every page that had an icon would also have a <link> to it, don't you?) -- /Jonas Thousands of innocent people killed at the WTC. Thousands of innocent people killed in the US's bombing of Afghanistan. How can you say that one of these actions is good while the other is an act of terrorism?
