Johnny Yen wrote: >> > 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. >> >>Absolutely. Site/page icons is a great feature. But automatically >>requesting favicon.ico unless there's a <link> to it in the document is >>NOT a good thing to do. It would almost be like automatically requesting >>favbackg.gif if no background picture is specified. >> >>One of the problems with this is that small sites hosted by services >>like Geocities will automatically get the favicon.ico of their free >>hosting provider. That can be very annoying.
> I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. In the past, as I've > reviewed my web logs, I noticed dozens and dozens of requests for favicons. > I thought, "cool, people are visiting and bookmarking (which is what we > want, isn't it?). So I took a few minutes, whiped up a favicon of my own > (you can do this sort of thing when you do web sites (or should at lease be > expected to)), and threw it in the root. Bingo, done. What's the problem? > Now people get MY little favicon when they visit. No problem. Unless you're don't like having your free hosting provider or ISP's favicon showed on your page. > The web is a VISUAL medium The web just provides information. The fact that most people happens to be using visual user agents doesn't make the web a visual medium. > and these little pics just make it a little bit > nicer for people who visit. Yes. That's what I said. I don't want site/page icons to die, I just want them to be <link>'ed to. That is just as nice for people who visit than auto-requesting them. -- /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?
