Blake Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[somebody challenged, How do you know people don't like favicons?
Yet you know they do?
I dunno about him. I know they do (the feature was requested by users).
Blake
A bit of history -
Clearest RFE:
grayrest [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb im Newsbeitrag
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
You *DO* realize that hyatt turned this off by default, don't you?
Only for now, because it's instable.
David Hyatt wrote:
Actually Gecko supports many IE proprietary extensions, among them
offsetWidth and offsetHeight, innerHTML, and the contextmenu event.
Interestingly, you are responsible for the misguided contextmenu event,
too. (I know nothing about the other cases.)
Auto-fetching
David Hyatt wrote:
If you don't like the feature, you can turn it off from the Appearance
panel in prefs. As room clears up in the Navigator prefs panel, the
pref will probably migrate to that panel instead.
OK, I'm a webmaster. I don't like this feature. I don't want any more
requests
Ben Bucksch wrote:
David Hyatt wrote:
If you don't like the feature, you can turn it off from the Appearance
panel in prefs. As room clears up in the Navigator prefs panel, the
pref will probably migrate to that panel instead.
OK, I'm a webmaster. I don't like this feature. I don't
Sören Kuklau wrote:
JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb im Newsbeitrag
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Ben Bucksch wrote:
OK, I'm a webmaster. I don't like this feature. I don't want any more
requests to /favicon.ico onmy server.
How exactly do I reach that Appearance panel
JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb im Newsbeitrag
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Hmmm Well, I suppose you could always do what a few misguided
souls did back in the earlier days of IE - sniff for the browser and
just not serve up pages to it (Sorry, get a 'real' browser like
why exactly can't you just do 'cp /dev/null webroot/favicon.ico', and
forget about it?
Ben Bucksch wrote:
David Hyatt wrote:
If you don't like the feature, you can turn it off from the Appearance
panel in prefs. As room clears up in the Navigator prefs panel, the
pref will probably
On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 19:48:51 -0500,
Travis Crump [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:why exactly can't you just do 'cp /dev/null webroot/favicon.ico', and
:forget about it?
ln -s /dev/zero webroot/favicon.ico
;-)
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ http://www.rocknerd.org/
A
On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 07:48:51PM -0500, Travis Crump wrote:
why exactly can't you just do 'cp /dev/null webroot/favicon.ico', and
forget about it?
Why should I have to? Why do people think it's ok to make a browser that
assumes I have an icon file? What's next? favsound.wav? favflash.swf?
CaT wrote:
On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 07:48:51PM -0500, Travis Crump wrote:
why exactly can't you just do 'cp /dev/null webroot/favicon.ico', and
forget about it?
Why should I have to? Why do people think it's ok to make a browser that
assumes I have an icon file? What's next?
CaT wrote:
On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 07:48:51PM -0500, Travis Crump wrote:
why exactly can't you just do 'cp /dev/null webroot/favicon.ico', and
forget about it?
Why should I have to? Why do people think it's ok to make a browser that
assumes I have an icon file? What's next? favsound.wav?
JTK wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
Google hits for Mozilla on the web: 3,970,000
99.44% of which begin: Why is Mozilla so slow/not 1.0 yet/not really
Open/crashing on me all the time/a commie sympathizer/showing me CNN
from a week ago/etc/etc/etc?
Unfounded statistic alert!
Google hits for
JTK wrote:
Get the spell checker implemented sometime this decade. Then you can
complain all you want about my fat fingers.
Go to http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56301 and download the
XPI or the RPM, the spell checker is already working for Mozilla.
Andrea
--
Andrea Monni
JTK wrote:
Get the spell checker implemented sometime this decade. Then you can
complain all you want about my fat fingers.
Why not get off your ass and build one? Everyone that comes here to complain
about that never EVER say, Well, gee, you don't have one? I can build one for
the project.
jesus X wrote:
JTK wrote:
Get the spell checker implemented sometime this decade. Then you can
complain all you want about my fat fingers.
Why not get off your ass and build one?
Now how in Your name do you expect me to type in code if my ass isn't
firmly planted in front of a
JTK wrote:
Now how in Your name do you expect me to type in code if my ass isn't
firmly planted in front of a keyboard?
Your ass clearly _is_ firmly planted, one could even say rooted, in
front of a keyboard. However, I still no code, unless you count your
useless fictional platform-specific
Blake Ross wrote:
Right, now let's all say it together: What AOL wants, AOL gets, and the
rest of the Open Maozilla community has no option but to suck it down.
Your attempts at starting some sort of mass rebellion against Netscape
are failing miserably. But I guess you've already
David Gerard wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 14:12:10 -0600,
JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:Sören Kuklau wrote:
: True. I'm not gonna defend the favicon behaviour, but I also consider it
: futile to further bother to complain against it. In other words: You gotta
: live with it.
:Right,
JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb im Newsbeitrag
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
David Gerard wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 14:12:10 -0600,
JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:Sören Kuklau wrote:
: True. I'm not gonna defend the favicon behaviour, but I also consider
it
: futile to
You don't :-) Reread my post, I think you misinterpreted it.
Blake
Sören Kuklau wrote:
JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb im Newsbeitrag
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
David Gerard wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 14:12:10 -0600,
JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:Sören Kuklau wrote:
[snip]
Why would I want to base a project on something as wildly
Blake Ross wrote:
You don't :-) Reread my post, I think you misinterpreted it.
Blake
Who doesn't what now? Sorry Blake, you'll have to give me a bit more
context than that. Or does Mozilla have an over-snipping defect too?
See your post. Then see mine. It shouldn't be hard to follow...
I wonder what sort of sad, lonely life you must lead where people's
blood boils with rage over newsgroup posts. Life's too short to care
that much about something so trivial in the end.
---
Blake
:: Fire Dave Hyatt! ::
JTK
JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb im Newsbeitrag
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Sören Kuklau wrote:
What image format would you use? GIF? Sorry, licensing issues. JPEG?
Sorry,
quality issues. PNG? Sorry, IE has alpha and gamma channel issues.
Something
else? Sorry, won't comply
Blake Ross wrote:
See your post. Then see mine. It shouldn't be hard to follow...
Yeah, like that. See, that's even easier than snipping all that truth
that makes you so angry, isn't it Blake? Just remember, it's for the
good of the code. Yeah, and that may not always be for the good
Yeah, like that. See, that's even easier than snipping all that truth
that makes you so angry, isn't it Blake?
Er...huh?
Just remember, it's for the
good of the code. Yeah, and that may not always be for the good of AOL.
If there's anyone your AOL rants aren't going to work on, it's
JTK wrote:
Or does Mozilla have an over-snipping defect too?
Yeah, Steve Case made me put it in.
JTK wrote:
Mozilla contiues to be a non-entity as far as the web is concerned
Google hits for Mozilla on the web: 3,970,000
Google hits for Internet Explorer on the web: 3,460,000
Non-entity indeed.
(Nice spelling by the way. Do you have to take lessons, or does it come
naturally?)
--
Ian
Ian Hickson wrote:
JTK wrote:
Mozilla contiues to be a non-entity as far as the web is concerned
Google hits for Mozilla on the web: 3,970,000
99.44% of which begin: Why is Mozilla so slow/not 1.0 yet/not really
Open/crashing on me all the time/a commie sympathizer/showing me CNN
from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron Andersen wrote:
And one of the rules (although perhaps not written out because it is
so completely obvious) is that a user agent doesn't go and ask web
servers for random files just because there might possibly be a file
with that name that would be useful.
Christian Biesinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb im Newsbeitrag
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron Andersen wrote:
And one of the rules (although perhaps not written out because it is
so completely obvious) is that a user agent doesn't go and ask web
Sören Kuklau wrote:
Christian Biesinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb im Newsbeitrag
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron Andersen wrote:
And one of the rules [...] is that a user agent doesn't go and ask web
servers for random files [...]
robots.txt?
Are
Christian Biesinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb im Newsbeitrag
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Sören Kuklau wrote:
No, but another user agent does: the search engine.
You can't compare this.
robots.txt described which files the search engine should index.
True.
Thus, its
Sören Kuklau wrote:
[snip]
True. I'm not gonna defend the favicon behaviour, but I also consider it
futile to further bother to complain against it. In other words: You gotta
live with it.
Right, now let's all say it together: What AOL wants, AOL gets, and the
rest of the Open Maozilla
Right, now let's all say it together: What AOL wants, AOL gets, and the
rest of the Open Maozilla community has no option but to suck it down.
Your attempts at starting some sort of mass rebellion against Netscape
are failing miserably. But I guess you've already realized that, since
On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 14:12:10 -0600,
JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:Sören Kuklau wrote:
: True. I'm not gonna defend the favicon behaviour, but I also consider it
: futile to further bother to complain against it. In other words: You gotta
: live with it.
:Right, now let's all say it together:
He probably realizes, like everyone else, that such a rebellion would
only fail, no matter how many people were a part of it. Corporate power
destroys everything in its' path.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Blake Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right, now let's all say it together: What AOL
David Gerard wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:03:06 -0600,
JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:David Gerard wrote:
: On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:14:57 +0100,
: Jonas Jørgensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: :Johnny Yen wrote:
: : Maybe I'm missing the point here, but given the choice between adding link
jesus X wrote:
Blake Ross wrote:
I work for Netscape, so there's nothing I can say about anything, but I
do rest assured that I know more about what's going on than you.
Well, I know almost as much as you do, and IU don't work for NS, but I decided
to be nice and not spill all the
Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
jesus X wrote:
Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
It offers convenience for *some* webmasters. What about those who have
their site on http://some.free.hosting.provider/~my_free_account?
They'll all get their hosting providers favicon because of this.
I said Just ignore
or Netscape or Sun Microsystems etc etc etc whatsoever? And AOL does
not have veto power?
Yup. Right on both counts!
Except you Blake.
No, me especially (see below in original post).
Why? Because the truths I broadcast struck too close to the bone?
No, I thought new people to the
What does the @mozilla.org people think about this? I don't recall
ever seeing a single comment about this from any of them.
My three posts are at:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news://news.mozilla.org:119/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news://news.mozilla.org:119/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL
Aaron, Peter Lairo, the rest of you who's arguing to get this feature
removed: I wish you the best of luck. I, however, feel like I'm
wasting my time here, so I'll stop now and do something else. Maybe I
should start whining about Backspace being mapped to Back on Win32
instead - unlike
Peter Lairo wrote:
That argument is silly. You could make the same argument for any of IE's
non-standard (but widely used) features. This whole favicon thing (to
me) goes against all that Mozilla is trying to achieve.
This is a non argument. This is exactly the same non argument that the
To expect Mozilla representatives to be able to evangelize any
significant percentage of these sites to use the link solution is IMO
overly optimistic.
It may be overly optimistic in your opinion, Dave, but why could you not
have adopted the plan I suggested at the beginning? That was
-
*You* thought it was cool. The rest of the world doesn't seem to agree.
What does the @mozilla.org people think about this? I don't recall ever
seeing a single comment about this from any of them.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] discussed this issue at (great) length, and it was
decided that the
We should certainly pay attention to this in upcoming usability tests.
We still support Alt+Left Arrow, but the objection as I understand it
is the accidental invocation of Back, typically when on a form page with
the focus on the page. I'm not sure I understand in what scenarios this
can be
Blake Ross wrote:
While I 100% agree, there's no need for hyperbole here. Whatever
happens with Mozilla has absolutely no bearing on the good of the Web.
Well, within a 0.75% margin of error.
Hah. I already explained what happens if Mozilla gets embedded. You, of
course, chose to
Gervase Markham wrote:
*You* thought it was cool. The rest of the world doesn't seem to agree.
What does the @mozilla.org people think about this? I don't recall ever
seeing a single comment about this from any of them.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] discussed this issue at (great) length, and it
Blake Ross wrote:
That might be true right now. But what about a year from now when
Mozilla has 40% market share?
Gosh, I hope not. Mozilla isn't a distribution, so 40% of internet users
wouldn't have any technical support at their disposal.
When I talk about Mozilla's market share, I
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
To expect Mozilla representatives to be able to evangelize any
significant percentage of these sites to use the link solution is IMO
overly optimistic.
It may be overly optimistic in your
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.
Do you really have a website with hundreds of *static* pages?
--
/Jonas
How many non-AOL employees were involved in that decision? Mozilla *is*
still an Open project, right?
You can see the makeup of [EMAIL PROTECTED] from our web pages. I can't
recall exactly who attended that particular meeting; as it was a heated
one, perhaps others can.
Gerv
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
JTK wrote:
How many non-AOL employees were involved in that decision? Mozilla *is*
still an Open project, right?
Of course, but open does not mean that everyone gets what they want. Some
decisions really are binary, and thus mutually exclusive.
--
jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless
On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:14:57 +0100,
Jonas Jørgensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
:Do you really have a
Gervase Markham wrote:
How many non-AOL employees were involved in that decision? Mozilla *is*
still an Open project, right?
You can see the makeup of [EMAIL PROTECTED] from our web pages.
No I can't. All I see is a list of contributors' names. And mine
strangely seems to be
See the cnet article about Mozilla being embedded in a beta version of
Compuserve.
I work for Netscape, so there's nothing I can say about anything, but I
do rest assured that I know more about what's going on than you.
Blake
JTK wrote:
Blake Ross wrote:
While I 100% agree, there's no
How many non-AOL employees were involved in that decision? Mozilla *is*
still an Open project, right?
Right.
Right?
Right (again). Of the fourteen people on
http://mozilla.org/about/stafflist.html#Staff-Members, exactly half are
not employed by AOL.
You know, you've really lost
David Gerard wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:14:57 +0100,
Jonas Jørgensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Ben Goodger wrote:
/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
Oh, wait, you mean
http://www.mozilla.org/about/stafflist.html#Staff-Members. Yeah, not
real clear there who's paid AOL muscle and who ain't.
Well, er, if you'd really like to know, see my other post where I gave
the numbers. Anyway, it generally doesn't say what company anyone works
On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:03:06 -0600,
JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:David Gerard wrote:
: On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:14:57 +0100,
: Jonas Jørgensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: :Johnny Yen wrote:
: : Maybe I'm missing the point here, but given the choice between adding link
: : rel=icon to hundreds of
Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
It offers convenience for *some* webmasters. What about those who have
their site on http://some.free.hosting.provider/~my_free_account?
They'll all get their hosting providers favicon because of this.
In those cases, you use the link tag to add your favicon.
--
jesus
Blake Ross wrote:
I work for Netscape, so there's nothing I can say about anything, but I
do rest assured that I know more about what's going on than you.
Well, I know almost as much as you do, and IU don't work for NS, but I decided
to be nice and not spill all the beans. But I'll be damned
jesus X wrote:
Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
It offers convenience for *some* webmasters. What about those who have
their site on http://some.free.hosting.provider/~my_free_account?
They'll all get their hosting providers favicon because of this.
I said Just ignore this message, didn't I? ;)
Not
Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
Not that you replied
That should of course be *now* that you replied... duh... too much
work, too little sleep... ;-)
--
/Jonas
On 09 Jan 2002 15:52:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Koenecke)
wrote:
Ah. In that case, I would think that the favicon.ico request process, since it
seems to have generated so much criticism, should be off by default but
available for activation by the user via the Preferences panel. In general,
Peter Trudelle wrote:
Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
I dislike it because I think it's the wrong way to implement this
feature. Sure, I could turn it off manually in my prefs.js, but what
good would it do when 99.9% of all Mozilla users still has it enabled?
It would still spam servers with
I'm entitled to have whatever beliefs I wish, as are you. But I'm not
entitled to expect that when I make demands of others based on those
beliefs that they will actually bend to my will, if they do not share
them. e.g.
I demand that everyone in the world who has Linux delete it and install
Ben Goodger wrote:
I'm entitled to have whatever beliefs I wish, as are you. But I'm not
entitled to expect that when I make demands of others based on those
beliefs that they will actually bend to my will, if they do not share
them. e.g.
Ben, nobody is demanding anything (want
So, is your concern more about the efficiency of the implementation,
alone, or does the extra server bandwidth affect you directly in some
way?
There seems to still be a lot of confusion as to what exactly we are
objecting to, so I am going to try to use this post to clear up a few
Peter Lairo wrote:
Ben Goodger wrote:
I'm entitled to have whatever beliefs I wish, as are you. But I'm not
entitled to expect that when I make demands of others based on those
beliefs that they will actually bend to my will, if they do not share
them. e.g.
Ben, nobody is demanding
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
David Hyatt wrote:
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.
That argument is silly. You could
It is anything but silly. As I mentioned in a previous post in this
thread, we are supporting many non-standard IE extensions in Mozilla,
but again, I fail to see how standards compliance or standards come into
play here, since there is no Web browser standard. This is a feature of
the
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.
So you are advocating that we request, on every site we
Peter Lairo wrote:
Ben Goodger wrote:
I'm entitled to have whatever beliefs I wish, as are you. But I'm not
entitled to expect that when I make demands of others based on those
beliefs that they will actually bend to my will, if they do not share
them. e.g.
Ben, nobody is
Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
Ben Goodger wrote:
The automatic favicon.ico fetching doesn't affect me directly - just
like it wouldn't affect me directly if someone wanted to implement
document.all support in Mozilla, since I never use document.all. But
I still want automatic favicon.ico
Aaron Andersen wrote:
And one of the rules (although perhaps not written out because it is so
completely obvious) is that a user agent doesn't go and ask web servers
for random files just because there might possibly be a file with that
name that would be useful. It just isn't right.
Peter Lairo wrote:
David Hyatt wrote:
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.
That
Somebody paid to have it added. Apparantly somebody with more money
than sense.
There has hardly been an outcry from web developers about this,
despite the distorted picture that a select few like to present. And
users, of course, don't care about the backend details, they just love
the
Yet you know they do?
I dunno about him. I know they do (the feature was requested by users).
Blake
Blake Ross wrote:
Yet you know they do?
I dunno about him.
Oh. I didn't see who you were responding too.
In that case, yes, I would expect Navigator's manager to know more about
the likes and dislikes of users than you (random Joe in the newsgroup).
Blake
[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
Mozilla is against improving the experience of users?
Peter Lairo wrote:
That argument is silly. You could make the same argument for any of
IE's non-standard (but widely used) features. This whole favicon thing
(to me) goes against all that Mozilla is trying to achieve.
The Mozilla browser is never going to have that kind of market share.
Let's be realistic. In order for the Mozilla browser to achieve that
kind of market share it would have to get 30% (at least) market share
from the Win32 platform, and there is no possible way to achieve that
kind of
Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
But what about a year from now when Mozilla has 40% market share?
Which distributor will achieve this, or, what change in Mozilla's
purpose and marketing can we expect to see this miraculous
transformation in position take place?
Ben Goodger wrote:
Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
But what about a year from now when Mozilla has 40% market share?
Which distributor will achieve this
Let's see... how about... Netscape?
--
/Jonas
Aaron Andersen wrote:
So you are advocating that we request, on every site we visit, a file
which over half of the time is not going to exist? According to that
statistic, the majority of favicon.ico requests we make result in a
404. Doesn't that bother you in the slightest?
No. Why
David Hyatt wrote:
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 links. But if Mozilla also autorequests
favicon.ico, they won't, and we will be stuck with auto-requesting
Ok, hold on, and time out. I added this feature entirely on my own.
Nobody from AOL told me to do it. I wandered into bug 32087 (a bug
nobody was fixing I should add), thought to myself, Hey it would be
cool if we supported the link custom icons *and* the favicon.ico
custom icons!, and
David Hyatt wrote:
Do you know what the number one rank on the Madia Matrix Top 50 Web
Properties list is? AOL Time Warner. You are employed by AOL Time
Warner. And so are the majority of rest of the leaders of this
project.
Ok, hold on, and time out. I added this feature
Ben Goodger wrote:
Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
But what about a year from now when Mozilla has 40% market share?
Which distributor will achieve this, or, what change in Mozilla's
purpose and marketing can we expect to see this miraculous
transformation in position take place?
You are
A vocal set of people on this newsgroup don't agree. There are many
people who do agree, but because it's enabled, they don't feel compelled
to spend a lot of time arguing about it in this newsgroup thread. :)
In the end, usability testing will indicate whether or not the end user
likes the
David Hyatt wrote:
In the end, usability testing will indicate whether or not the end user
likes the feature, i.e., has his/her browsing experience enhanced by the
feature. If favicon.ico provides a way of enhancing that experience
right now (as opposed to depending on a market share and
No idea. I don't work on the mail front end.
Peter Lairo wrote:
David Hyatt wrote:
In the end, usability testing will indicate whether or not the end
user likes the feature, i.e., has his/her browsing experience enhanced
by the feature. If favicon.ico provides a way of enhancing that
David Hyatt wrote:
Aaron Andersen wrote:
So you are advocating that we request, on every site we visit, a file
which over half of the time is not going to exist? According to that
statistic, the majority of favicon.ico requests we make result in a
404. Doesn't that bother you in the
David Hyatt wrote:
*You* thought it was cool. The rest of the world doesn't seem to agree.
A vocal set of people on this newsgroup don't agree. There are many
people who do agree, but because it's enabled, they don't feel compelled
to spend a lot of time arguing about it in this
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
