[whatwg] <link rel=icon width=
beidson at apple.com
Mon May 5 10:40:42 PDT 2008
On May 5, 2008, at 10:28 AM, Ernest Cline wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com>
>> Sent: May 5, 2008 5:27 AM
>> On Sun, 04 May 2008 02:38:03 +0200, Ernest Cline
>> <ernestcline at mindspring.com> 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
>>> with only <link rel=icon> then I dare say that it is strong enough
>>> 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
>> <icon> would not be backwards compatible. In some user agents (at
>> 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.
More information about the whatwg