I'd really like to avoid sticking this in specs. We already have 3
ways of adding icons, /favicon.ico, <link rel=icon> and <link
rel=manifest>. That's probably about 2 too many. We shouldn't add a
4th one. Generally speaking, eventually I think manifests is what will
encourage the best UX and the easiest syntax for authors.

Given that both Blink and Gecko is adding support reluctantly and is
planning to remove support, adding it to the spec will make this
deprecation harder. At the very least, if it's added to the spec, add
very clear language about it being deprecated.

/ Jonas

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl> wrote:
> For <link rel=icon> we already define the /favicon.ico fallback. If a
> page lacks <link rel=icon sizes> we should probably also look at
> Apple's proprietary extension here given that it's quite widely
> adopted. Chrome supports it and there is some work going on in Firefox
> as well: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=921014
> --
> http://annevankesteren.nl/

Reply via email to