5 ms·
Why is that preferable?
by memco 5y ago
Why is that preferable?
- sdflhasjd 5y agoBecause it has all the cool benefits of SVG :p
- teddyh 5y agoBecause it’s a valid image.
- chrismorgan 5y agoNo it’s not: the root <svg> element must exist in the http://www.w3.org/2000/svg http://www.w3.org/2000/svg namespace, or the file won’t be valid SVG and won’t be rendered. Alas for my beautiful short form that won’t work after all: <link rel=icon href=data:image/svg+xml,<svg/%3E> I’ll just have to settle for this: <link rel=icon href="data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'/>"> Note, however, that by making it a valid SVG file, the browser will render an empty favicon, rather than saying “this page has no favicon” and either leaving the space out or putting some default icon in instead. Consequently, `data:,` is almost certainly preferable. (If you’re not sure why I worded the namespaces remark so rather than just talking about an xmlns attribute, here’s some valid SVG: <foo:svg xmlns:foo="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"/> http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"/>.)