Talk:Favicon/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
favicon.co.uk external link
Somebody remove a link I inserted for www.favicon.co.uk
I realise wiki is nofollow
I didn't insert it to get better traffic
I inserted it to give viewers another option apart from antifavicon which is listed and lets users produce text based favicons (neat tool) Favicon.co.uk allows users to process images from their computer
I think it would be useful in Wiki to show users two ways of making favicons
but hey...it's no big deal!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.176.121 (talk • contribs).
- I removed because we're not a directory. If people need more choices for creating favicons Google will quickly bring them up a whole list of places they can go. Also your IP address had made 5 edits to Wikipedia, 4 of which were to add links registered by the same person (which fits quite closely to our definition of spamming). Please consider adding content to our articles rather tahn external links to your sites. Thanks. -- Siobhan Hansa 21:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Closing slash in example?
Should the examples:
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="http://example.com/favicon.ico" type="image/vnd.microsoft.icon"> <link rel="icon" href="http://example.com/favicon.ico" type="image/vnd.microsoft.icon">
be:
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="http://example.com/favicon.ico" type="image/vnd.microsoft.icon" /> <link rel="icon" href="http://example.com/favicon.ico" type="image/vnd.microsoft.icon" />
To ensure W3C validity? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.21.76 (talk • contribs) 200707080554.
- No. That could very well ensure invalidity. ¦ Reisio 23:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- To further elaborate on Reisio's statement, using closing slashes as you describe is only for XHTML. The examples in question are for HTML, and using such closing slashes in HTML is not W3C valid. -kotra (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
MSIE versions and favicon
I included information in the article about which MSIE versions request favicon on a regular basis, and which do not (the wording "Older" and "Newer" made unclear the behaviour of MSIE 6.0, which may be considered "newer" than MSIE 7.)
I don't know if MSIE 5.0 requests favicon, but...
A local test with MSIE 6.0 yielded
GET / HTTP/1.1 Accept: */* Accept-Language: en-gb,en-us;q=0.7,es-ar;q=0.3 Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; MathPlayer 2.10; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Host: 127.0.0.1:81 Connection: Keep-Alive
A regular remote request made by MSIE 7.0 I yielded
GET / HTTP/1.1 Accept: */* Accept-Language: es-ar UA-CPU: x86 Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.0.04506; InfoPath.2) Host: xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx Connection: Keep-Alive GET /favicon.ico HTTP/1.1 Accept: */* UA-CPU: x86 Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.0.04506; InfoPath.2) Host: xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx Connection: Keep-Alive
Note this is not original research, just observation of reality. Rjgodoy 20:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Favicon chart removal question
Noticed that my Favicon support chart link was pruned. I didn't post it here originally and bow to the opinion of the community as to its value, relevance or lack thereof, but am curious as to why it was removed; perhaps I can improve it in some way. Looks like it was removed Sept 4 but there doesn't appear to be a note associated with the history entry. To jog the community's memory, here's the original description and link. Thx for any hints.
Favicon support chart- Detailed favicon behaviour and functionality by browser, version and platform http://www.informationgift.com/ud/faviconic/
Lewisfrancis 00:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Guidelines
Not sure what is the etiquette for page edits, but I feel the lines:
Another limitation of the code below is that it associates a favicon with a specific HTML or XHTML document. To avoid this, the favicon.ico file should be placed in the root directory. Most browsers will automatically detect and use the favicon.ico file.
might be improved with a bit of clarification. The limitation is a requirement for Mozilla (though not Firefox/Camino) and should also be thought of as a feature in that it allows for more granular control; sections of a site may have different favicons; for example, the W3C's validation results page renders with a green favicon for valid results and a red favicon for failed, and portal sites have used this method for sub-brand differentiation. Placement of favicon.ico at root is also noted at the bottom of this sections bulleted list, making the second line a bit redundant, especially if we accept the argument of feature > limitation. I will grant that adding the link tag to a large site can be a limitation to the extent that it requires more effort, but then the payoff is that the favicon presents on every page for IE 6 users rather than just the page that was bookmarked. If no one disagrees after a time I'll modify this part of the section to emphasize the advantages of linked favicon. Lewisfrancis 01:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Microsoft cheats
As stated in the article, m$ registered its own image/vnd.microsoft.icon for their purposes. But did you know that Microsoft itself doesn't use it? I tried all sorts of generators to get the favicon to display in at least one browser when directly requested. After some time spent analyzing the situation, I found out that Microsoft's website actually sends image/x-icon as the file's mime type. Contrary to that, Apache obediently uses the m$ mimetype, which doesn't get recognized by any browser, not even Microsoft's own latest browser. Theultramage (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
THIS ARTICLE IS ALL WRONG...
I just have 15 seconds to give you...
This article is advocating "standards" for "modern browsers" -- that won't work even for IE7.
It is telling you specific things you "should" do, rather than describing actual implementation.
Most glaringly:
- .ico files should always be 16x16 pixels (for all browsers other than IE7 on Vista)
- IE only supports .ico format so this should always be used
- image/vnd.microsoft.icon is not supported by all browsers and should not yet be used
For the favicon reality for 80% of Web users see:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms537656.aspx
Also note the separate Wikipedia article on .ico format should have a section on .ico for Web browsers -- it's only about .ico for applications (a much less common use of the format in practice). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.150.229 (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.225.228 (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Flavicons for an idiot, namely me
After reading the discussion above, I am confused. With Yahoo hosted websites, written with MicroSoft Web Expressions, should I really care if I see a bunch of flavicon.ico errors in the logs? This general question might help a lot of readers if you all have a consensus. Is there any impact whatsoever on the client's browser or what the client is able to do?Nukeh (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
IE Category
Why is this only in the category for Internet Explorer? That is not neutral. 68.6.168.241 (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Modal/Modeless windows
Some mention should be made that favicons don't work with documents opened using window.showModelessDialog() or window.showModalDialog(). 76.252.46.85 (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is the use of favicon.ico referred to as URI squatting? There is a rich history of document names having special meanings on the web. index.htm, index.html, index.php, default.asp? The use of a request always to favicon.ico while it may have issues is not "squatting" any more than those other standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.5.20 (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
It's squatting because the client is arbitrarily dictating the "correct" URI for a resource. You gave four different names for exactly the same thing: the default page to serve when a client requests a directory. The mere fact you can list four different names for this same file disproves your point without even considering the fact that all general purpose HTTP servers allow the administrator to configure this default filename. 203.59.93.81 (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Article wording
I think this article has very weird wording, especially the "Use" section. It needs to be cleaned up and "Wikipedized" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.43.168 (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am a favicon collector (have over 3000 favicons), and found this article very to the point. Debresser (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Add external link to favicon collection
I want to propose to add an external link to a favicon collection. For illustrational purposes.
The site I would like to propose is MpP Favicon Gallery. It is the largest collection on the web, with clickable links and commentaries to all favicons.
note: I am an expert on favicon collections, as mine has over 3300 of them (see my Talk page). To be fair, there is one site with more favicons, but it has no clickable links (so is not really a collection), no explanations and small representation of the icons. Debresser (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I posted the link today. I did see the notice that Wikipedia is not a directory. Therefore I would like to repeat that including just this one collection does seem justified to me for illustrational purposes. I have searched this talk page as well as the archived talk page, and nowhere does it say not to. Neither has anybody voiced his protest here since I raised the question on January 10. Debresser (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Somebody added
- Favicon Gallery - 50,000+ handpicked favicons as voted for by the community
This is none of my doing. Debresser (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for noting this in the edit summary; I didn't realize there was already a discussion about the link. The official Wikipedia:External links guideline can be interpreted pretty strictly, but I don't have a problem with leaving a link to a gallery in the article if people think it's helpful. Dreamyshade (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
source
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7839744.stm — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Should "URI squatting" be "URL squatting"?
It seems like it to me, but I didn't change it because there are so many things I don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.143.222 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 6 February 2009
How to tell browsers to don't bother requesting a Favicon?
Mention what does one put in <link> to tell browsers:
- Don't bother requesting a Favicon, because you are not going to find one. Don't bother sending a GET for wherever you think one might be, because you're just going to get 404 - Not Found.
You might say "well, just don't use a <link>." However then browsers just try a GET on the default place. Jidanni (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
favorites icon VS. favorite icon
I've just done the Google test: 18 million in singular, 6 in plural. As it has no sense being in plural when talking about one in particular ("I will install the favorites icon in my web site"?), I change it to singular. Any further discussion and information, let me know: I'm terminological interested in this issue. 
Sobreira (parlez) 11:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
IMHO you are right. Debresser (talk) 09:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree... "favorites icon" is a singular noun phrase, so there's no problem in saying "favorites icon" when talking about one icon. Thus "favorites icon" is as good as "favorite icon" by that criterion. However "favorite icon" is inferior in the sense that it's more ambiguous. "Favorite icon" could easily be misunderstood to mean an icon that someone likes best, instead of an icon symbolizing a favorite web site. "Favorites icon" as a label means "icon shown in the 'Favorites' area/feature of a web browser" ... which is no longer entirely true, since favicons can be shown for any page regardless of its being a favorite page or site... but then, current meaning does not have to equal etymology. So I favor "favorites icon" as being less ambiguous. (stet) Huttarl (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Redirect favorite icon or favorites icon to this article?
Should there be redirects for favorite icon or favorites icon to this article? Yes, I am ignoring WP:BB as guidance. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
As I've heard it said more than once here: redirects are cheap. So yes. Debresser (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Filesize restrictions?
Different browsers reject different sized favicons. It'd be nice to learn the filesize limits. kthxbye! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.148.201.38 (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Size of favicon?
At the beginning of the article the sizes '16x16', '32x32' and '64x64' is given. At the bottom of the article the '64x64' is missing (only the two other sizes are given). Does anybody know which one is correct? --193.254.175.108 (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Safari and Chrome
There is no mention of Apple Safari and Google Chrome browsers. Please add the info regarding these two rather important browsers.--WikiCantona (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
What we would need to add? They support it fine, there is no problem at all. 189.89.156.99 (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
moving
What about moving favicons, nothing has been said about that in the article... --80.101.231.102 (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- hugh? moving? to where? why? for what? I never heard of! mabdul 16:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- I mean animated...--80.101.231.102 (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- I know that Gecko (FF) and Presto are supporting that. Don't know since then, but you are able to see that know in that support table mabdul 08:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Apple Touch Icon ≠ Favicon
The section on apple-touch-icons should be removed. These are similar to favicons on the iPhone OS, but they are a different type of icon. (For example, favicons are always seen and support multiple formats up to 64x64, while Apple touch icons are only seen on the home screen and must be a 57x57 PNG.)
IlliterateSage (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)