Topic: Favicons vs custom scrollbars

I was wondering why in the newer versions of browsers like Netscape and Mozilla, there is support for the favicon, but not things like stylised scrollbars...

I understand that scrollbars might not be supported because of W3C CSS issues, but what about the favicon? If anything I'd have thought custom-designed scrollbars were more popular than favicons any day. And favicons disappear after a while anyway, once they're removed from the cache.

((( species X )))

As far as custom scrollbars are concerned, I talked about them here: http://www.ozoneasylum.com/Forum8/HTML/000288.html

From the thread I'd reckon you're a regular Mozilla user. So you'd forgo the customisable scrollbars IE supports for customisable browser skins instead? I wouldn't.

((( species X )))

In Gecko-based browsers, favicon is applied using the <link> tag, like this example:
<LINK REL="icon" HREF="images/mozilla-16.png" TYPE="image/png">

Scrollbars? It's an IE-specific extension using its own CSS which is invalid.
Remeber, the scrollbars is not part of a web page.

cheeaun

well scrollbars do become part of the page when you use scrollable divs and iframes embedded in your page.
I wouldn't mind seeing the W3C add CSS specs to control scrollbars, but I believe Moz is doing the right thing by not adding it without a standard supporting it.

And the favicon thing was once just a thing in IE.
When you bookmarked a page in IE it would look for the favicon so it could put it next to the bookmark for easier visual recognition of the bookmark you want later.
When only IE did this, I use to check my 404 stats for favicon.ico to see how many IE users had bookmarked my domains.

Now the linked icon in the page is shown to the left of the address in the address bar in Mozilla.

Hm. reading that thread, I fail to see where Max gives any indication that he is a regular Mozilla user, or that he would 'choose the favicon over colored scrollbars'.

I doubt seriously that any web-user with a brain would choose their preferred browser that way.

Good info in that thread though.

DL-44 said:

quote:

---

Hm. reading that thread, I fail to see where Max gives any indication that he is a regular Mozilla user, or that he would 'choose the favicon over colored scrollbars'.

---

But I said:

quote:

---

So you'd forgo the customisable scrollbars IE supports for customisable browser skins instead?

---

The thread linked in max's post doesn't mention favicons at all, and neither did I (see quote above).

((( species X )))

[This message has been edited by speciesX (edited 10-14-2002).]

quote:

---

In Gecko-based browsers, favicon is applied using the <link> tag, like this example:
<LINK REL="icon" HREF="images/mozilla-16.png" TYPE="image/png">

---

So Favicons are compliant with W3C standards? Hmm. Does anyone know why customisable scrollbars still aren't and/or will never be?

((( species X )))

speciesX: You asked:

quote:

---

Does anyone know why customisable scrollbars still aren't and/or will never be?

---

but cheeaun has already answered it:

quote:

---

Scrollbars? It's an IE-specific extension using its own CSS which is invalid.

---

Basically Microsoft decided to create that style on their own and the W3C haven't adopted it as a standard. They may do at some point in the future - who knows? There are a number of browser-specific styles and the CSS standard haven't adopted many of them (some of Moz's are actually early implementations of CSS3 styles).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Species - Yes, I put in the wrong term, having looked at the title while psoting.

However, use your imagination, substitute the right word, and the Point is still the same, as intended.

"So Favicons are compliant with W3C standards?"

No, not directly. The <link> element is, but this is Mozilla's special use of the link element which isn't directly mentioned by the W3C. Nonetheless, it's a good use of the element, IMO.

I think there are valid points for and against being able to have custom scrollbars.

In part, a scrollbar is usualy an OS related thing. A web page shouldn't really control stuff like that.

Then again, a webpage can control a browser window, so why shouldn't you be able to control the scrollbars inside the browser window?

Although, this is really up to the browser developers, as skinnabul applications are all the rage now supporting custom scrollbars probably isn't on their todo list.

As for the scrollbars inside a document (iFrame or DIV-overflow:scroll) eh, you could always code a javascript scroller.

my problem with javascript rollers is they don't allow scrolling with the mouse's scroll wheel.
If I can't scroll it with the scroll wheel, I don't read it.

at least I've never come across a javascript roller that does.
If anyone has one, I'd love to see an example.

Same thing with flash scrollers. blech.
Another reason for not having completely flash sites.

quote:

---

If anyone has one, I'd love to see an example.

---

http://www.slimeland.com/cyanslime/ in IE 6 (the only browser that i know of that supports the onmousewheel event).

Not that I advocate making a DHTML scroller when overflow:auto will do just fine.

And IE's support for favicon is still very poor. Netscape 6.x has far better support, even allowing animated images. But until IE resolves the problem with favicons disappearing when you clear your cache, I think it's almost not worth the trouble.