Comments on: Inside your head http://nidahas.com/2005/06/01/inside-your-head/ Musings on design, web standards and free software from a Sri Lankan geek Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:32:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 By: drac http://nidahas.com/2005/06/01/inside-your-head/#comment-91 drac Wed, 01 Jun 2005 17:41:24 +0000 http://nidahas.com/2005/06/01/inside-your-head/#comment-91 On favicons, 32x32 px is also acceptable and provides a bit more flexibility. However, browser support for the larger size is dodgy. MS IE will use the larger size for a bookmark (favourites ?) icon, for example. I would suggest taking an image in any popular format and getting a favicon from <a href="http://www.chami.com/html-kit/services/favicon/" rel="nofollow">html-kit</a>. It's not always easy to reduce a detailed image to such a small size without blurring and loss of detail, but they do a better job than a 5 minute photoshop can accomplish :) They also create a real icon file, which is a wondrous beastie. An .ico file is actually a container and can encapsulate 16x16 and 32x32 (and even larger sized) images, all in one file. Of course, all that complexity doesn't serve the lowest common denominator so most favico implementations just use a 16x16 icon as you note. On favicons, 32×32 px is also acceptable and provides a bit more flexibility. However, browser support for the larger size is dodgy. MS IE will use the larger size for a bookmark (favourites ?) icon, for example.

I would suggest taking an image in any popular format and getting a favicon from html-kit.
It’s not always easy to reduce a detailed image to such a small size without blurring and loss of detail, but they do a better job than a 5 minute photoshop can accomplish :)

They also create a real icon file, which is a wondrous beastie. An .ico file is actually a container and can encapsulate 16×16 and 32×32 (and even larger sized) images, all in one file.

Of course, all that complexity doesn’t serve the lowest common denominator so most favico implementations just use a 16×16 icon as you note.

]]> By: OldBoy http://nidahas.com/2005/06/01/inside-your-head/#comment-92 OldBoy Thu, 02 Jun 2005 02:03:49 +0000 http://nidahas.com/2005/06/01/inside-your-head/#comment-92 Nicely put, Prabhath. On favicons, as Drac said html-kit's tool is handy. Or if you like to save it as a .ico directly from Photoshop, they have a nice plugin here <a>http://www.telegraphics.com.au/sw/</a> Nicely put, Prabhath.

On favicons, as Drac said html-kit’s tool is handy. Or if you like to save it as a .ico directly from Photoshop, they have a nice plugin here http://www.telegraphics.com.au/sw/

]]> By: Prabhath http://nidahas.com/2005/06/01/inside-your-head/#comment-93 Prabhath Thu, 02 Jun 2005 03:20:29 +0000 http://nidahas.com/2005/06/01/inside-your-head/#comment-93 Thanks for the pointer to favicon creator and the PS plugin folks. I guess it's time to update my "padma" (the traditional lotus art I use on this site). Thanks for the pointer to favicon creator and the PS plugin folks. I guess it’s time to update my “padma” (the traditional lotus art I use on this site).

]]> By: Jim http://nidahas.com/2005/06/01/inside-your-head/#comment-96 Jim Sat, 04 Jun 2005 20:55:35 +0000 http://nidahas.com/2005/06/01/inside-your-head/#comment-96 Is it really worth switching off "MS Smart Tags"? It was present in a single Internet Explorer 6.0 beta. I'd guess that there are more people using Netscape 4 than Internet Explorer 6.0 betas. Is it really worth switching off “MS Smart Tags”? It was present in a single Internet Explorer 6.0 beta. I’d guess that there are more people using Netscape 4 than Internet Explorer 6.0 betas.

]]> By: Prabhath http://nidahas.com/2005/06/01/inside-your-head/#comment-97 Prabhath Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:40:33 +0000 http://nidahas.com/2005/06/01/inside-your-head/#comment-97 Turning smart tags off doesn't hurt anything else but that IE 6.0 beta. I don't want to take chances with MS browsers ;-) Turning smart tags off doesn’t hurt anything else but that IE 6.0 beta. I don’t want to take chances with MS browsers ;-)

]]> By: udendra http://nidahas.com/2005/06/01/inside-your-head/#comment-207 udendra Tue, 13 Sep 2005 08:11:40 +0000 http://nidahas.com/2005/06/01/inside-your-head/#comment-207 I think all these tags should be used according to the intended purpose. Note that it isn't mandatory that you use all of them in your 'HEAD'. I think all these tags should be used according to the intended purpose.
Note that it isn’t mandatory that you use all of them in your ‘HEAD’.

]]> By: James AkaXakA http://nidahas.com/2005/06/01/inside-your-head/#comment-709 James AkaXakA Sun, 02 Apr 2006 14:47:48 +0000 http://nidahas.com/2005/06/01/inside-your-head/#comment-709 Actually, you shouldn't put content-type in, as the server already sends it along in the http headers. By including it, you're opening the door for mime-type missmatches. Not a good thing. Actually, you shouldn’t put content-type in, as the server already sends it along in the http headers.

By including it, you’re opening the door for mime-type missmatches. Not a good thing.

]]>