3 ms·
Maybe I'm missing the point of some Open Graph properties, but in this case... what's wrong with just using the HTML standard <link rel="icon" href="/path.png">
by callahad 11y ago
Maybe I'm missing the point of some Open Graph properties, but in this case... what's wrong with just using the HTML standard <link rel="icon" href="/path.png"> tag, which is already well-specified, well-supported, and even includes an optional "sizes" attribute?
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/semantics.html#rel-icon https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/semantics.html#rel-ic...
- alexkadis 11y agoI agree completely. I don't see why this additional spec is wanted/needed.
- maccman 11y agoIn general we've found that companies are using the icon rel for favicons (16x16 icons) which don't do a good job of representing a company logo at larger sizes.
- callahad 11y agoIf you're looking for positive intent, maybe propose that sites explicitly set the sizes attribute? Either way, you're asking folks to modify their <head>. Embracing the icon rel avoids duplicating effort.
- maccman 11y agoYes good point! We'll make sure that we pick up icon rels that point to pngs or jpgs (not icos) too.
- test_account_ 11y agoThere are a huge number of cases where application icon (favicon) and corporate logo are not the same thing. For example, Google.