It makes so much sense it hurts, especially when we think of desktop links, home page pins, etc.
The whole "bundle multiple sizes of animated files into one container" is crazy when they are nearly always different resolutions of precisely the same file.
If we have SVG we could modify the SVG at runtime to have it display additional data really easily.
As for video in favicons... kill me now. SVGs and a strict limit on favicon sizes would be good (enforced by browsers, ditch anything over 50KB - it should be more than enough!).
A nice bug I saw recently was that a server could be instructed to send an infinitely sized favicon, and the browser would happily consume it. Nice way to drain a phone battery, use all of the connection bandwidth, and just to play havoc.
What I want from favicons:
1) SVG
2) SVG support for icons in all major OS's so that desktop links and homepage links just work as SVG
Do SVGs really perform better than pixel are for what favicons are used for? I was under the impression that vector graphics performs poorly at small sizes.
It makes so much sense it hurts, especially when we think of desktop links, home page pins, etc.
The whole "bundle multiple sizes of animated files into one container" is crazy when they are nearly always different resolutions of precisely the same file.
If we have SVG we could modify the SVG at runtime to have it display additional data really easily.
As for video in favicons... kill me now. SVGs and a strict limit on favicon sizes would be good (enforced by browsers, ditch anything over 50KB - it should be more than enough!).
A nice bug I saw recently was that a server could be instructed to send an infinitely sized favicon, and the browser would happily consume it. Nice way to drain a phone battery, use all of the connection bandwidth, and just to play havoc.
What I want from favicons:
1) SVG
2) SVG support for icons in all major OS's so that desktop links and homepage links just work as SVG
3) Max-size enforced by browsers