This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/links.html Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#rel-icon Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#rel-icon Comment: What is an 'appropriate' size for an icon? Posted from: 2620:0:1001:1001:72cd:60ff:fea8:58be User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_7) AppleWebKit/534.30 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/12.0.742.112 Safari/534.30
I.e. assume an icon with size 8x8 and a second one with 64x64. If the UA needs a 57x57 icon, which one should be picked? Also, assume an icon without size attribute of 57x57, and a second icon with size attribute of 64x64. Again, is 64x64 considered an appropriate size for the request? Would 8x8 still be appropriate? In general, how is the right icon pick if no exact size match can be determined, and at what point does the UA actually need to inspect the resource without size attribute to determine size? Or should conflict resolution be considered out of scope for the HTML5 spec, and up to the UA?
I don't think it makes sense to specify an exact algorithm for picking an appropriate icon. It seems like a QoI issue. Since the various icons are likely going to just be different sizes of the same thing, and the decision of which icon to pick isn't visible to script (so pages can't easily depend on it), it doesn't seem like it matters much if different UAs pick different icons to display in some cases.
Should the spec then even refer to "appropriate" sizes? It seems like it "sort-of" tries to suggest an algorithm. Quote: "If the attribute is not specified, then the user agent must assume that the given icon is appropriate, but less appropriate than an icon of a known and appropriate size."
I think it would be better if the spec just didn't try to define behavior here at all, unless there's a known interop problem. See bug 13106 comment 3.
Completely agreed. Declaring resolution undefined/implementation-specific simplifies both the spec and implementation work. (And like you, I think it's more a matter of aesthetics which icon is picked than anything else) Same goes for bug 13016 - both bugs were filed simply to clarify.
mass-move component to LC1
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Accepted Change Description: see diff given below Rationale: That text was weird. I've tried to improve it.
Checked in as WHATWG revision r6465. Check-in comment: Loosen up the already loose requirements around rel=icon sizes=''. http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=6464&to=6465