-----Original Message----- >From: Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: May 5, 2008 5:27 AM > >On Sun, 04 May 2008 02:38:03 +0200, Ernest Cline ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Perhaps, but it means adding attributes to <link> elements that will >> only be needed for a single link type. If the use case for these >> attributes is strong enough to add special purpose attributes for use >> with only <link rel=icon> then I dare say that it is strong enough to >> have a special purpose <icon> element so as to keep user agents from >> having to deal with nonsense such as <link rel=stylesheet height=32 >> width=32> > ><icon> would not be backwards compatible. In some user agents (at least >Opera and Firefox) that would imply a <body> element for instance.
Would making <icon> an optional content of <title> break backwards compatibility? The incompatibility problem you mention comes from the start and end tags of both <head> and <body> being optional. That isn't the case for title and it makes sense syntactically to place it there as the icon is part of the identifying information for the document.
