XF 2.1 What am I? PNG or ICO or SVG?

[au lait]

<xf:if is="property('publicFaviconUrl')">
        <link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="{{ base_url(property('publicFaviconUrl'), true) }}" sizes="32x32" />
    </xf:if>

unfortunately PNG is fixed in the template. But I can specify an SVG via the style-property. Which makes more sense than a PNG.

Which then looks like this.

<link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="https://cdn1.XXXXX/favicon.svg" sizes="32x32"/>

Doesn't exactly look right or professional

Yes, you can change this in the template itself. But it would be nicer if you can specify this directly in the style-property or if this is recognized correctly by the system.

Always make template changes is really uncool for updates

 

[Mouth]

if this is recognized correctly by the system.

Better to log this as a bug thread, IMHO.

@ /admin.php?styles/abc.2/style-properties/group&group=basic#sp-publicFaviconUrl the narrative for Favicon URL is "[..]and usually a PNG." Yet, it's hard coded as a image/png regardless of the image type used.

 

[djbaxter]

When did the standard for favicons stop being .ico?

 

[au lait]

When did the standard for favicons stop being .ico?

does not seem to be so anymore! for XF the default is PNG
According to wiki many graphic formats are possible

Favicon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It would be interesting to know what is allowed now! There are many sources that call SVG allowed, but also many that consider SVG to be illegal.

No matter what is true PNG is hard in the code, if I specify an ICO for example, it is still wrong! Therefore the template should be corrected.

 

[Mike]

I've adjusted the wording to make it clearer that it's not "usually" a PNG -- we expect it to be a 32x32 PNG. If you want to use something else (different sizes, different format, etc), then you will need to make direct template modifications.

SVGs have only very recently been supported by the majority of cases, so this is simply not something our system expects (and I'm not sure it's particularly beneficial in most cases -- at a 32x32 size, you might be better with a raster image anyway).

 

[Mouth]

I've adjusted the wording to make it clearer that it's not "usually" a PNG -- we expect it to be a 32x32 PNG. If you want to use something else (different sizes, different format, etc), then you will need to make direct template modifications.

I wonder how many people have upgraded, currently having a .ico for the their favicon, and xF is now incorrectly designating image/png for it. And very few people know because it's not highlighted in any change log or HYS? I wasn't aware until reading this thread. Is this a change for 2.2, or earlier?

 

[Mike]

As far as I'm aware, this has been the same behavior/expectation through all of 2.x.

 

[au lait]

then you will need to make direct template modifications.

But that's exactly what it's all about!

I know that I can edit templates for every crappy one.

But for important things or even modern normal things I find this unnecessary. I expect the software to cover this correctly.
That means, the user can choose which format he wants to use (or better automatic recognition).
Also the multiple entry of graphics makes sense with the style-property.

I think it is very important to change as few templates as possible. Especially since you always make massive changes from XF version to version.

In this case: Great I can enter a graphic URL! But FORCED PNG because it's hardcoded! If I want to specify another format I have to edit a template. Does THIS make sense?
Either correctly or not at all. But so half-assed... I don't know.
Are only my thoughts about it! But maybe I expect too much from XF


maybe this little thing doesn't interest anyone. Since it works!

But for owners who want to work correctly, they don't want it that way.
Also the avatars that end on JPG.... Also a thing like this.
Because just because they are called JPG they can also contain PNG content! I don't think that's professional either. Good example your avatar.

 

[Mouth]

As far as I'm aware, this has been the same behavior/expectation through all of 2.x.

No, xF 2.0 wasn't even suggesting a PNG, no mention at all.