For something that claims to "grok" URLs, using "://" as part of the logo seems to be misunderstanding how URLs (are supposed to) work. According to RFC3986, URIs (the proper name; URLs are a kind of URI) are correctly of the form: : For some schemes, the may contain a , the format for which is: // [/ ] | So it's only hierarchical URIs with a defined authority that have the (admittedly iconic) "://" in them. I know m…
No, it supports mainly schemes with a hierarchical-part - even though it works with 'file:'
For a logo there's absolutely no problem in using an element that's common and pretty identifiable