[whatwg] <link rel=icon width=
Smylers at stripey.com
Thu May 1 00:02:21 PDT 2008
Ernest Cline writes:
> > ... proposal to add "height" and "width" attributes to <link>
> > specifically for the case of rel=icon, so that authors can provide
> > multiple icons and let the UA decide which to use based on their
> > size
> Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but why wouldn't:
> <link rel=icon style="width: 16px; height:16px">
> serve to mark width and height adequately?
* The style attribute says _how_ to display something, not what that
something _is_. The above says: "Ignore the icon's intrinsic size and
scale it to 16 x 16."
* CSS is optional, so browsers shouldn't be forced to use it to find out
some meta-data. And if a user had elected to turn off CSS for
displaying in pages, would a browser still be permitted to use it for
* Nested attribute syntax is more awkward and error-prone than having
width and height directly on the element.
> It's even perfectly fine HTML 4 syntax.
Why is that interesting? If it's syntax that current browsers already
do something useful with then that's a big point in its favour; but if
it's something which is currently a no-op then that it happens to be
syntactically permitted in an older standard doesn't seem like a benefit
over any other syntax which browsers currently ignore.
More information about the whatwg