favicon.ico not working

[Cox Newsgroups]

I created an icon and placed favicon.ico in the main directory of the web
site. The html below is placed in the head of the code before the </head>.
<LINK REL="shortcut icon" href="http://www.mysite.com/favicon.ico"
type="image/x-icon">
At first, my favicon.ico was showing in the url and in the tab of IE7.

I logged in again a number of hours later and it is no longer working. Do I
need another line of code?

Thanks.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

I created an icon and placed favicon.ico in the main directory of the web
site. The html below is placed in the head of the code before the </head>.
<LINK REL="shortcut icon" href="http://www.mysite.com/favicon.ico"

Perhaps the host mysite.com doesn't have your icon file.

You might want to use example.com for your examples.

 

[Cox Newsgroups]

Perhaps the host mysite.com doesn't have your icon file.

You might want to use example.com for your examples.

the favicon.ico does exist in the root directory. When I first uploaded the
new index.html with the line of html code and the .ico, this was working. A
couple hours later, the page did not display it in the link/url or on the
tab. I refreshed the page and even emptied the cache.

Lloyd

 

[Neredbojias]

I created an icon and placed favicon.ico in the main directory of the
web site. The html below is placed in the head of the code before the
</head>. <LINK REL="shortcut icon"
href="http://www.mysite.com/favicon.ico" type="image/x-icon">
At first, my favicon.ico was showing in the url and in the tab of IE7.

I logged in again a number of hours later and it is no longer working.
Do I need another line of code?

Thanks.

I haven't thoroughly explored IE 7, but if it's anything like IE 6, it will
get it wrong. MS has its own ideas on how to handle a favicon, among other
things. For an accurate check, try Firefox.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

the favicon.ico does exist in the root directory. When I first uploaded the

Not of mysite.com.

You seem to have missed my point.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

I haven't thoroughly explored IE 7, but if it's anything like IE 6, it will
get it wrong. MS has its own ideas on how to handle a favicon, among other
things. For an accurate check, try Firefox.

Umm... Microsoft *invented* the little things. By definition, Microsoft's
fay of handling favicons is the right way. If other browsers differ, then
they are wrong.

There are plenty of places where IE can be demonstrated to get things
wrong. This is not one of them.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux

* = I'm getting there!

 

[Anze]

Umm... Microsoft *invented* the little things. By definition, Microsoft's

fay of handling favicons is the right way. If other browsers differ, then
they are wrong.

Of course you are right - to some point. MS handling is the correct way in
your sense of the word, but it is not the _expected_ way.

IE is very picky and sometimes doesn't change favicons and sometimes doesn't
show them. The favicons are still OK, just IE decides that it doesn't want
to show them.

So the advice is correct: check favicons in other browsers, if they work
there, they are OK. If you don't like what IE does with them - tell that to
MS Support or simply use a browser that works _as expected_. i suggest
FireFox or Opera.

If it doesn't work in FF either then check file permissions. Some providers
automatically change file ownership and permissions every couple of hours.

Best,

Anze

 

[John Hosking]

If it doesn't work in FF either then check file permissions. Some providers
automatically change file ownership and permissions every couple of hours.

?!

 

[Toby A Inkster]

?!

I'd imagine providers exist that, say, automatically:

- Find files that have chmod 777 and make them a little safer;
perhaps making them readable to just the owner and Apache.

- Find files where the owner themselves has no read permission,
and make them readable to the owner

As the former would fix a potential security problem, and the latter would
fix a reasonably common technical support issue.

But taking read permissions away from a particular file by a script is
another matter. I can't imagine any competent hosts doing that.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux

* = I'm getting there!

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Of course you are right - to some point. MS handling is the correct way in
your sense of the word, but it is not the _expected_ way.

IE is very picky and sometimes doesn't change favicons and sometimes doesn't
show them. The favicons are still OK, just IE decides that it doesn't want
to show them.

<=MSIE6 (Not sure about 7), you have to bookmark a page for the favicon
to show. Also <=MSIE6 are strict on to format,at least use to be, 16x16
4-bit icon only whereas other browsers will allow PNG, GIF, JPG and more
colors and multiple-format icons without any trouble.

 

[Neredbojias]

Umm... Microsoft *invented* the little things. By definition,
Microsoft's fay of handling favicons is the right way. If other
browsers differ, then they are wrong.

Eh? The "inventor" defines the "correctness" without adjustment of
progress or evolution?

There are plenty of places where IE can be demonstrated to get things
wrong. This is not one of them.

I think so.

 

[Andy Dingley]

Eh? The "inventor" defines the "correctness" without adjustment of
progress or evolution?

There is no standard for favicon, largely because M$oft won't play
ball. The web is built by layering one simple standard on top of
another. M$oft's half-baked implementation of favicon broke existing
standards in at least 3 ways, so it's just not possible to integrate
it into the grand scheme of things. (From memory, these are: insisting
on a fixed URL location within a site for the icon document, using a
magic name for the rel atribute that had forbidden spaces in it, and
using an icon format that didn't have a defined MIME type (easily
fixed)).

Some smart puppy should go and draft an RFC for favicon with a clever
backwards-compatible method for making it work transparently in both
worlds. As that's beyond this bear's little brain, even a clear
documentation of the existing position would be worthwhile. However
trying to bring M$oft to heel is a thankless task and usually asking
for your work to be dumped on by them in the next release.

 

[Anze]

But taking read permissions away from a particular file by a script is

another matter. I can't imagine any competent hosts doing that.

I didn't say "competent" providers. But they exist, believe me.
(I know of one that changes ownership, thus effectively changing
permissions. Incompetent, I agree.)

Best,

Anze

 

[Neredbojias]

There is no standard for favicon, largely because M$oft won't play
ball. The web is built by layering one simple standard on top of
another. M$oft's half-baked implementation of favicon broke existing
standards in at least 3 ways, so it's just not possible to integrate
it into the grand scheme of things. (From memory, these are: insisting
on a fixed URL location within a site for the icon document, using a
magic name for the rel atribute that had forbidden spaces in it, and
using an icon format that didn't have a defined MIME type (easily
fixed)).

Some smart puppy should go and draft an RFC for favicon with a clever
backwards-compatible method for making it work transparently in both
worlds. As that's beyond this bear's little brain, even a clear
documentation of the existing position would be worthwhile. However
trying to bring M$oft to heel is a thankless task and usually asking
for your work to be dumped on by them in the next release.

A standard could surely be advantageous, though I may suggest that a "non-
sensible" standard is hardly better than no standard at all. Regarding
favicons, it seems to me that the way Mozilla (and Opera I believe)
impliment it is much superior to the way IE does it. Therefore, any
hypothetical standard based on the IE-method is hardly worth the effort. I
might propose a meta line change from 'link rel="icon"...' to 'link
rel="favicon"...', however.