3 ms·

Not every file displayed in a browser is a html document.

by 6510 2y ago

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?

Not every file displayed in a browser is a html document.

by 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?