undefined | Better HN

0 pointsphillco14y ago0 comments

Just to play devil's advocate, but I like this practice. Convention over configuration. Just place the favicon in the root directory of the site, give it an explicit URL if you need one.

Of course, many people end up putting an explicit reference in anyway, so, eh. Probably not that helpful.

The 404 errors in particular seem like a very Machiavellian way to get sites to support your browser's features. You have to wonder how many people add in a favicon or iTouch icon just to shut up the errors up.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

drivebyacct214y ago· 1 in thread

Maybe I'm being pedantic, but the HTML reference to the favicon is the convention. I personally roll my eyes when I deploy something and see tons of 404s in my log for favicons that I've not made available or suggested that browsers attempt to load.

pbhjpbhj14y ago

>HTML reference to the favicon is the convention //

No, the convention is that a favicon.ico file is found in the root of the site and that you can instead locate an icon by supplying a URL. Sucks as a convention.

Interestingly Google on their search homepage (for me at least) are using a microdata markup and not serving an explicit icon:

See eg http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/#names:-the-itemprop-attribute

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse