[Please write your reply BELOW the text you are replying to. Thanks.] David Hyatt wrote:
>> The question that remains is: Why? Why do we need to automatically >> request a file called favicon.ico when no icon is specified? Why is that >> any better than automatically requesting favbackg.gif when no background >> is specified? > > The basic problem is that in order for custom site icons to be useful to > the end user, you have to fetch favicon.ico. If you don't fetch > favicon.ico, then the feature is essentially useless, since you won't > get custom icons for any Web sites. > > Of the Media Metrix top 500 sites, 45% have valid favicon responses, > nearly all of which are valid favicons. The degree to which favicon.ico > is already supported by the top sites on the Web should not be > underestimated or ignored. > > To expect Mozilla representatives to be able to evangelize any > significant percentage of these sites to use the <link> solution is IMO > overly optimistic. > > Without supporting favicon.ico, the usefulness of the custom icon > feature is zero. That might be true right now. But what about a year from now when Mozilla has 40% market share? If Mozilla only supported the <link> solution, people will add <link>s. But if Mozilla also autorequests favicon.ico, they won't, and we will be stuck with auto-requesting favicon.ico forever. Can't you see it? Please, for the good of the Web, switch this off before it's too late! -- /Jonas
