"Jonas J�rgensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > 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?) >
Here again, it's a helluva lot easier to throw a favicon into the root rather than ad <link rel="icon"> to hundreds and hundreds of pages just to get the same effect. jy
