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.

<title> is parsed as CDATA, so tags inside it are not processed as such, and instead become part of the title. Try opening a document containing this to see:

<title><icon src="foo.jpg">This is some fancy title</title>

Thus, putting <icon> in the <title> would look terrible in all existing user agents (at least ones that display the title), in addition to being a total hack.

In addition, if we add <icon>, UAs will have to parse both <link rel="icon"> (since many sites already specify icons this way, sometimes 16x16 but sometimes bigger) and the new <icon>, but the old way will have no way to specify size data. In fact, if a site has icons with sizes from 16x16 up to anything you could reasonably want, it will have to link it with <link rel="icon"> to support older browsers and then again with <icon> to specify the size data.

So, on further reflection, I think a new <icon> element would be a bad way to go.

Regards,
Maciej

Reply via email to