Maybe the point of whatever line of argument you and your like-minded posters are pushing, but not the point of the feature.
/favicon.ico offers convenience for web masters, and both implementations result in convenience for the user. What site author is going to go to the trouble of even updating all his or her templates (there's bound to be more than one, I consider mozilla.org a very simple case) simply to add this in? First operation: drop in ico file. Second operation: drop in image file & link up at least one template, more like 3-4 or several hundred. Peter Lairo wrote: > Johnny Yen wrote: > >> Maybe I'm missing the point here, but given the choice between adding >> <link >> rel=icon> to hundreds of pages or simple dropping a favicon in the >> root, >> I'll take the favicon. > > > > Yes, you are missing the point here. >
