On May 5, 2008, at 10:28 AM, Ernest Cline wrote:
-----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.
I agree with this, and continue to like the idea of a specialized
element for the icon.
~Brady
