Favicon question

[Bart]

Hi there,

If I use frames, should a reference to the favicon.ico (like:
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="pictures/favicon.ico"
type="image/x-icon">) be placed on _every page_, or is one reference
in the index.htm (top-frame) enough.

I'm asking this question because I had a reference in my top-frame
only, wich seemed to work OK (the favicon showd in the adress-bar in
all frames), but all of a sudden the favicon won't show anymore in the
adress-bar (it still shows up in the bookmarks). This happened both in
IE and FireFox at home (Win ME, IE 5.5/FF 0.9.3) and at work (Win XP
Pro, IE 6/FF 1.0).

I haven the favicon.ico file both in the "pictures/" folder and in the
folder where the top-frame is in (if this information is of any
importance).

Any help would be appreciated.

Bart
--
Bart Broersma
br*********************@tiscali.nl
(ff _ANTISPAM_ wegpoetsen uit dit adres natuurlijk)

[Barbara de Zoete]

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 20:37:51 +0100, Bart <br*********************@tiscali.nl>
wrote:

If I use frames, should a reference to the favicon.ico (like:
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="pictures/favicon.ico"
type="image/x-icon">) be placed on _every page_, or is one reference
in the index.htm (top-frame) enough.
I'm guessing here, but since it is a 'favicon', meant to show in IE's
favourites toolbar originally, I suppose you set it on the page that gets
linked if bookmarked as a favourite.
I'm asking this question because I had a reference in my top-frame
only, wich seemed to work OK
URL?
(the favicon showd in the adress-bar in
all frames), but all of a sudden the favicon won't show anymore in the
adress-bar (it still shows up in the bookmarks). This happened both in
IE and FireFox at home (Win ME, IE 5.5/FF 0.9.3) and at work (Win XP
Pro, IE 6/FF 1.0).
Hadn't you used frames, you wouldn't be experiencing this problem in the first
place:
<http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/2004/11/frames.html>
and <http://www.google.nl/search?%22your+browser+doesn't+support%22+frames>
I haven the favicon.ico file both in the "pictures/" folder and in the
folder where the top-frame is in (if this information is of any
importance).

It should be at the place you reference in the <link rel="shortcut icon">, but
usually putting it in the root will do (although you won't be able to put it
in the root of tiscalli.nl) ;-) .
--
,------------- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: --------------.
| weblog | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html> |
| webontwerp | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html> |
| zweefvliegen | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html> |
`---------------------------------------------------------------------------'

[Barbara de Zoete]

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 20:44:57 +0100, Barbara de Zoete <b_********@hotmail.com>
wrote:

The Google link should read:

and <http://www.google.nl/search?q=%22your+browser+doesn't+support%22+frames >

Sorry for that.

--
,------------- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: --------------.
| weblog | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html> |
| webontwerp | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html> |
| zweefvliegen | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html> |
`---------------------------------------------------------------------------'

[Tim]

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 20:37:51 +0100,
Bart <br*********************@tiscali.nl> posted:

If I use frames, should a reference to the favicon.ico (like:
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="pictures/favicon.ico"
type="image/x-icon">) be placed on _every page_, or is one reference
in the index.htm (top-frame) enough.
Possibly in all of them, I haven't seen anything detailing how browsers
should handle favicons with frames. Frames are evil, search against that
exact phrase and you'll find all manner of explanations why. :-\ But
seeing how it's the URL for the frameset document that *you* load, I'd
expect it to go there.

If your website happens to be in the root of a domain [1], then you don't
need to put a link for it. But if you're in a sub-directory off the root
[2], then you will. Browsers generally look for it at one well-known
address ("/favicon.ico").

1: http://www.example.com/
2: http://www.example.com/users/your_space/
but all of a sudden the favicon won't show anymore in the
adress-bar (it still shows up in the bookmarks)
That can sometimes happen if you don't create the icon file in the manner
the browser expects (16x16 pixels, if I recall correctly).
I haven the favicon.ico file both in the "pictures/" folder and in the
folder where the top-frame is in (if this information is of any
importance).

Put the icon file in one place, and if you're writing links to it rather
than letting the browser find it where it expects it, write all of those
links to its actual location.

--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

[Dan]

Tim wrote:

If your website happens to be in the root of a domain [1], then you don't need to put a link for it. But if you're in a sub-directory off the root [2], then you will. Browsers generally look for it at one well-known
address ("/favicon.ico").

As far as I am aware, Mozilla only looks for it at all if it is
explicitly in a link element, since it is impolite to webmasters to be
making requests for often-nonexistent files in the absence of anything
announcing their presence.

--
Dan

[Tim]

Tim wrote:

If your website happens to be in the root of a domain [1], then you
don't need to put a link for it. But if you're in a sub-directory off
the root [2], then you will. Browsers generally look for it at one
well-known address ("/favicon.ico").

"Dan" <da*@tobias.name> posted:
As far as I am aware, Mozilla only looks for it at all if it is
explicitly in a link element,
Here, all my current browsers I just played with find it by themselves at
"/favicon.ico" without a specific link to it in the HTML document (Mozilla,
Firefox, MSIE, Opera - though I don't have the absolute latest public
version of Opera).
since it is impolite to webmasters to be making requests for
often-nonexistent files in the absence of anything announcing
their presence.

Impolite for "web browsers" to make the request...

But I agree, it's not a particularly good thing to request files that
haven't been offered, although "/favicon.ico" has such a long history by
now that one shouldn't be surprised by the request.

It's not the only thing that works that way, some modern browsers will make
a request for a P3P file at a "well known" (common default) address (if I
recall correctly, it's "/w3c/p3p.xml").

And web spiders will look for "/robots.txt", another unadvertised file.

There's probably some others, too.

--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

[Bart]

Op Tue, 28 Dec 2004 20:44:57 +0100 schreef "Barbara de Zoete"
<b_********@hotmail.com>:

URL?
http://home-1.tiscali.nl/~knmg0017/

(the favicon showd in the adress-bar in
all frames), but all of a sudden the favicon won't show anymore in the
adress-bar (it still shows up in the bookmarks). This happened both in
IE and FireFox at home (Win ME, IE 5.5/FF 0.9.3) and at work (Win XP
Pro, IE 6/FF 1.0).
Hadn't you used frames, you wouldn't be experiencing this problem in the first
place:
<http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/2004/11/frames.html>

Yes, but my left frame is used for navigating, it saves time loading
and rendering while browsing on my site.
and <http://www.google.nl/search?%22your+browser+doesn't+support%22+frames>
What browsers don't support frames these days ??
(I know my site is not very accessible for e.g. visually handicapped
people)
It should be at the place you reference in the <link rel="shortcut icon">, but
usually putting it in the root will do (although you won't be able to put it
in the root of tiscalli.nl) ;-) .

Just flushed my FF cache, and now the favicon is there again ...
Thanks for the input.

Bart

--
Bart Broersma
br*********************@tiscali.nl
(ff _ANTISPAM_ wegpoetsen uit dit adres natuurlijk)

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Bart wrote:

Op Tue, 28 Dec 2004 20:44:57 +0100 schreef "Barbara de Zoete"

and
<http://www.google.nl/search?%22your+browser+doesn't+support%22+frames>

What browsers don't support frames these days ??
Talk about comprehensively missing the point!!!

Unfortunately, very few /browsers/ allow the user to opt out of
frames. Given the many acknowledged shortcomings of frames, that alone
/should/ be enough reason to avoid using them, unless you provide an
equal-valued explicit alternative.

But the perceptive Barbara wasn't talking about a browser! - and
that's the point which seems to have escaped your notice.
(I know my site is not very accessible for e.g. visually handicapped
Such as web indexing robots, maybe?
people)

Not all (immediate) web clients are "people". Given that it's
"people" you're presumably intending to reach - in the end - it surely
makes sense to co-operate with the intermediaries. Such as search
engines.

And the ability to define bookmarks, and send them to a friend. And
so on.

This isn't new. You really could learn from reading earlier
discussions, you know.