I don't like the hardcoding .
+7
A:
Look at the source of this page:
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="http://sstatic.net/so/favicon.ico" >
Janco
2009-08-27 12:16:08
Ah! Great minds think alike ... deleting my answer and upvoting yours.
Sinan Ünür
2009-08-27 12:18:33
yes, I see we both used the same logic to come to this conclusion.I was trying to add this response to your comment earlier but it had gone, now understand why :)
Janco
2009-08-27 12:20:39
It works with firefox,but when browsed with IE,still no icon.
Shore
2009-08-27 12:53:32
I found with my IE6,no site has a icon:(
Shore
2009-08-27 12:56:46
Check http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum21/11293.htm for info on IE6 and favicons. The wikipedia page on the subject is also helpful.
marramgrass
2009-08-27 13:31:37
+1
A:
rel="shortcut icon" is good, but in the end probably fruitless. I don't like the hardcoding either, but we're stuck with it.
You can't put a <link> on a non-HTML object (such as directly viewing an image), or error pages you don't completely control. And sometimes browsers seem to fetch favicon anyway, ignoring the link. So your server error logs will continue to fill up with pointless 404 errors for /favicon.ico even if you do change the path.
Thank you, Microsoft, would it have been too much to ask to only request favicons from sites that include the link? And now we have the problem double, with Apple insisting on fetching /apple-touch-icon.png too, despite no indication that such a file might exist. You companies are rubbish. Rubbish I tell you!
bobince
2009-08-27 13:39:45