This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
The treatment of resources sourced from <link rel=icon> should probably same as though from an <img> element: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded0.html#the-img Philip Taylor did a bit of research on existing usage of content-types with favicons and found enough inconsistencies to warrant further study: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0242.html This issue was originally discussed in #whatwg: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20080618#l-40
(In reply to comment #0) > The treatment of resources sourced from <link rel=icon> should probably same as > though from an <img> element: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded0.html#the-img > > Philip Taylor did a bit of research on existing usage of content-types with > favicons and found enough inconsistencies to warrant further study: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0242.html > > This issue was originally discussed in #whatwg: > http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20080618#l-40 > It's not clear to me that this has been resolved to the satisfaction of the submittor. Shawn, can you please respond to indicate if it has been or not?
Yes, the current editor's draft provides language sufficient to handle the real world data Philip found: > If the resource is expected to be an image, user agents may apply the image sniffing rules, with the official type being the type determined from the resource's Content-Type metadata, and use the resulting sniffed type of the resource as if it was the actual type. Otherwise, if the resource is not expected to be an image, or if the user agent opts not to apply those rules, then the user agent must use the resource's Content-Type metadata to determine the type of the resource. If there is no type metadata, but the external resource link type has a default type defined, then the user agent must assume that the resource is of that type. The image sniffing rules reference are here: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#content-type8
(In reply to comment #2) > Yes, the current editor's draft provides language sufficient to handle the real > world data Philip found: OK. Closing this per that verification from Shawn.