51–55 of 55 posts
For what its worth i made a tool a while back that takes a big image and makes a bunch of sizes for you as well as the code etc. I've not touched it in over a year but it still gets used every now and again. http://allthefavicons.com/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good luck with that.
Why is it so unlikely? The simple fact is that demand for the internet is inelastic. There is no good reason to not install Firefox. It is open-source, standards-compliant, more secure, as fast (if not faster) than IE. All it takes is for companies to say no - you have to spend 5 minutes installing a different browser (and you'll be glad you did). Time to grow some balls.
You're going to have lots of fun losing 25% of your customers (more or less depending on regional IE usage), many of them companies with oodles of cash. Heck, here IE usage is 14% while Firefox is 31% and Chrome 47%, according to StatCounter. Not as bad as the US, but still a huge piece of the pie.
Sure, it makes technical sense - IE sucks (well IE 9 and 10 are much better, but still).
It makes NEGATIVE NINE THOUSAND business sense - you've got to be crazy to refuse to support IE 8+.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
5) wait another 7 years for IE to implement it, with their own "twist". 6) wait another 5 years for IE to properly implement it.
I haven't tested nor cared how something appears in IE in years. Since like 2009. I have worked on major frontends for a couple of big companies all this time and recently a startup. IE is the new opera. IE needs to make sure that everything works. It may have large marketshare, but it's the market that's irrelevant to anything I've worked on (IT and business related tools and control panels).
If I ever win the lottery I'm taking out full page ads in the national newspapers asking the general public if they know how stupidly out of date certain banks are internally and asking it it fills them with confidence or not!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ICO is a kind of multi image PNG format.
ICO is multi image BMP and it's poorly defined
Wikipedia has a description of the file format and it's certainly not the worst i've seen - restricting yourself to only PNG images removes all the mess around skipping bmp headers and paletted colours, you end up with a very short and concise header and binary list format, and it should be trivially implemented from the description.
Of course, i havn't implemented it myself, so it's obvious i'd say that. But i'm curious as to what issues you have with it / what you would change?
Why don't we have mipmapping on the web? I've never heard anyone suggest it before, but it seems like a good solution to this problem and all the other pixel ratio kinds of problems.
If you stick to the precise definition of mippmapping, where they're exact downscalings of one texture, that solves a different problem — efficient downscaling, only sampling O(1) texture pixels per displayed pixel.
On the web CPU isn't the problem; there are 2 other reasons so serve several sizes:
(1) Tiny images (like favicons) don't scale well, you might want manual intervention. (2) Too large images waste bandwidth => you want negotiation, especially to transmit less to mobile devices.
.ico was a quite elegant solution to (1) actually. I guess all the mess comes from icon resolutions growing enough to turn the problem into (2)...
There several efforts to solve this generally — google "Responsive Images", "srcset". I'd think progressive JPEG and PNG could have solved (2) well — just stop downloading when you had enough quality — but many people say that's not enough :-(