Convert favicon.png to favicon.ico

[xuhdev]

For user customized icon url, we could convert the current favicon.png to favicon.ico, and remove this line.

The reason is simple: if there is a /favicon.ico, we do not need to specify the icon URL, since this is the default. If user want to use their own customized favicon URL, they could add the code to the _custom/head.html.

This is somewhat a solution of #483.

What do you think of this? If you need me to do this, I could turn this into a pull request.

[omasanori]

Converting favicon to .ico is good for a browser not supporting images other than .ico, say IE.

However, simply removing a line specifying the icon URL may be harmful because now the icon URL refers <the path defined as root in _config.yml>/favicon.png, not /favicon.png. If you are using Octopress in a subdirectory, source/favicon.ico will be ignored when the icon URL isn't specified.

Certainly we can add the line to the _custom/head.html, but it bother us that the default one is ignored sometimes and used otherwise. Removing the default 'O' icon may be bad (?) but IMHO it's still better than explaining "you can specify root for publishing to a subdirectory, but the source/favicon.ico will be ignored only if you do, thus you may also edit _custom/head.html when you want to publish to a subdirectory..."

[omasanori]

Well, I don't mean that it's better to remove the default icon, but it's wrong to expect that they will always publish their content to a top directory.

[xuhdev]

@omasanori I understand that /favicon.ico is not always available. Yes, but converting the format to ico would extend the browser support, like IE.

I don't understand this:

Certainly we can add the line to the _custom/head.html, but it bother us that the default one is ignored sometimes and used otherwise. Removing the default 'O' icon may be bad (?)

What does this mean?

[omasanori]

@xuhdev I'm sorry. I'll explain it more.

For example, anyone want to publish Octopress content to www.example.com/blog (actually I'm doing, so I think it's not a silly example).

He may find favicon.png is in the source directory, and he replaces it for his blog or leaves it. It works in both cases if he read _config.yml and write root: /blog in the file. If the icon URL is removed by default, he will find that source/favicon.png doesn't appear in browsers' location bar.

Once he understand that source/favicon.png is in www.example.com/blog/favicon.png and it will not be used by default, he must solve that issue. However, if he is new to Octopress, he will think something is broken because the default one is provided in the place but it doesn't work for him, won't he?

While /favicon.png is not used by default anyway, it's not important whether favicon.png is converted to .ico or not. The problem is source/favicon.xxx is not always the default one for browsers.

Does it make sense?

[xuhdev]

You mean there will be a backward compatibility issue, right?

On Jun 4, 2012, at 22:07, OGINO Masanorireply@reply.github.com wrote:

@xuhdev I'm sorry. I'll explain it more.

For example, anyone want to publish Octopress content to www.example.com/blog (actually I'm doing, so I think it's not a silly example).

He may find favicon.png is in the source directory, and he replaces it for his blog or leaves it. It works in both cases if he read _config.yml and write root: /blog in the file. If the icon URL is removed by default, he will find that source/favicon.png doesn't appear in browsers' location bar.

Once he understand that source/favicon.png is in www.example.com/blog/favicon.png and it will not be used by default, he must solve that issue. However, if he is new to Octopress, he will think something is broken because the default one is provided in the place but it doesn't work for him, won't he?

While /favicon.png is not used by default anyway, it's not important whether favicon.png is converted to .ico or not. The problem is source/favicon.xxx is not always the default one for browsers.

Does it make sense?

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#594 (comment)

[omasanori]

Yes, but it's not all. It is a confusing difference between common expectation ("Ah, there is a favicon. I see.") and actual behavior (it will be used if you publish to / but otherwise it will be ignored).

Well, some people won't be confused because they have confirmed that there is no link rel="icon", they know where the default is and they are calm enough to remember these things when a published favicon is not actually used.

However, I'm talking about the others like me :)