5 ms·

> Having a path-specific favicon actually sounds like a feature. Can you provide at least a couple of use-cases for a path specific favicons?

userbinator 2y ago
Sites where users each get a directory for their profile.
- justsomehnguy 2y ago
  These can be solved by <meta favicon=./user_favicon.ico> or something. Do this require a browser probing every path with /favicon.ico?
  - 6510 2y ago
    Not every file displayed in a browser is a html document.
    - Symbiote 2y ago
      Then put the location in an HTTP Link header.
    - justsomehnguy 2y ago
      Ah, yes, how could I forgot what https://contoso.tld/users/6510/grocerylist.jpg https://contoso.tld/users/6510/grocerylist.jpg is the file what is very prominently displayed in a browser of the every contoso.tld visitor, so it definitely demands for the browser to query https://contoso.tld/users/6510/grocerylist.jpg/favicon.ico https://contoso.tld/users/6510/grocerylist.jpg/favicon.ico just in case user 6510 would want to display a custom favicon when someone is watching that grocerylist.jpg, right? I understand what you tried to retort just to retort, but I've had asked for the actual use-cases, not the mock ones and purely hypothetical.
      - 6510 2y ago
        I think it use to display a downsized version of the image. The use case is this: I drop the icon in a folder and never look back. It just works. Why would I want an additional approach? > These can be solved by > <meta favicon=./user_favicon.ico> > or something. There is nothing to solve, it already works, the line has no advantages but it does have "or something" disadvantages. Your memory is no doubt better than mine but you didn't remember how the tag worked. <meta> is for information about the document <link> is to describe relationships with other things. You've also left out the quotes. <link rel="icon" type="image/x-icon" href="/favicon.ico"> This is the correct way of having an extra line of code that does nothing. For fun someone thought it a good idea to also have rel="shortcut icon" I'm picturing a room full of applauding people. (Who had nothing better to do) image/x-icon isn't really correct, x- is for experiment, it should be type="image/vnd.microsoft.icon" Browsers accept anything in the attribute. They also support not having a type. But if our goal is to have superfluous lines of html we should definitely go with the correct IANA mime type registered in 2003. Redundant link headers also sounds fun! Maybe in the future there will be new fixes for problems no one has?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- shagie 2y ago
  If the url is server.com/users/jsmith/hobbies/fun/photography.html then how many directories should be probed for a favicon? Is that also the correct behavior for trying to identify a favicon for something like docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/org/xml/sax/helpers/DefaultHandler.html
dspillett 2y ago
Many. Though they aren't common enough that it needs to be a built-in, especially as you can already specify a page specific icon via a link tag in your page's head which every up-to-date stable browser has had support for since 2010 or before (ref: https://caniuse.com/?search=link-icon https://caniuse.com/?search=link-icon).
- justsomehnguy 2y ago
  > Many. Can I see them?
  - dspillett 2y ago
    Yes? Other people had already mentioned some in this thread. Generally: Any circumstance where you might want the icon to change per section/page/app rather than per (sub)domain. Do you want me to enumerate all possible combinations of web server configuration and tick the ones that applies to?! For one: perhaps you host several tools off the same domain name, either literally on the same web server or via a proxy arrangement. As I said, these circumstances aren't all that common, and when they turn up I doubt the right favicon being use is going to be something you'd care about overly, but I wouldn't be surprised to find there are circumstances where it is important enough to someone.

userbinator 2y ago

Sites where users each get a directory for their profile.

justsomehnguy 2y ago
These can be solved by <meta favicon=./user_favicon.ico> or something. Do this require a browser probing every path with /favicon.ico?
- 6510 2y ago
  Not every file displayed in a browser is a html document.
  - Symbiote 2y ago
    Then put the location in an HTTP Link header.
  - justsomehnguy 2y ago
    Ah, yes, how could I forgot what https://contoso.tld/users/6510/grocerylist.jpg https://contoso.tld/users/6510/grocerylist.jpg is the file what is very prominently displayed in a browser of the every contoso.tld visitor, so it definitely demands for the browser to query https://contoso.tld/users/6510/grocerylist.jpg/favicon.ico https://contoso.tld/users/6510/grocerylist.jpg/favicon.ico just in case user 6510 would want to display a custom favicon when someone is watching that grocerylist.jpg, right? I understand what you tried to retort just to retort, but I've had asked for the actual use-cases, not the mock ones and purely hypothetical.
    - 6510 2y ago
      I think it use to display a downsized version of the image. The use case is this: I drop the icon in a folder and never look back. It just works. Why would I want an additional approach? > These can be solved by > <meta favicon=./user_favicon.ico> > or something. There is nothing to solve, it already works, the line has no advantages but it does have "or something" disadvantages. Your memory is no doubt better than mine but you didn't remember how the tag worked. <meta> is for information about the document <link> is to describe relationships with other things. You've also left out the quotes. <link rel="icon" type="image/x-icon" href="/favicon.ico"> This is the correct way of having an extra line of code that does nothing. For fun someone thought it a good idea to also have rel="shortcut icon" I'm picturing a room full of applauding people. (Who had nothing better to do) image/x-icon isn't really correct, x- is for experiment, it should be type="image/vnd.microsoft.icon" Browsers accept anything in the attribute. They also support not having a type. But if our goal is to have superfluous lines of html we should definitely go with the correct IANA mime type registered in 2003. Redundant link headers also sounds fun! Maybe in the future there will be new fixes for problems no one has?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
shagie 2y ago
If the url is server.com/users/jsmith/hobbies/fun/photography.html then how many directories should be probed for a favicon? Is that also the correct behavior for trying to identify a favicon for something like docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/org/xml/sax/helpers/DefaultHandler.html

dspillett 2y ago

Many. Though they aren't common enough that it needs to be a built-in, especially as you can already specify a page specific icon via a link tag in your page's head which every up-to-date stable browser has had support for since 2010 or before (ref: https://caniuse.com/?search=link-icon https://caniuse.com/?search=link-icon).

justsomehnguy 2y ago
> Many. Can I see them?
- dspillett 2y ago
  Yes? Other people had already mentioned some in this thread. Generally: Any circumstance where you might want the icon to change per section/page/app rather than per (sub)domain. Do you want me to enumerate all possible combinations of web server configuration and tick the ones that applies to?! For one: perhaps you host several tools off the same domain name, either literally on the same web server or via a proxy arrangement. As I said, these circumstances aren't all that common, and when they turn up I doubt the right favicon being use is going to be something you'd care about overly, but I wouldn't be surprised to find there are circumstances where it is important enough to someone.