Fungovanie tejto stránky je z dôvodu údržby dočasne obmedzené. Ak článok nevyrieši váš problém a chcete položiť otázku, napíšte našej komunite podpory na Twitter @FirefoxSupport alebo Reddit /r/firefox.

Vyhľadajte odpoveď

Vyhnite sa podvodom s podporou. Nikdy vás nebudeme žiadať, aby ste zavolali alebo poslali SMS na telefónne číslo alebo zdieľali osobné informácie. Nahláste prosím podozrivú aktivitu použitím voľby “Nahlásiť zneužitie”.

Ďalšie informácie

Why doesn't firefox obey rel="icon" and instead assumes that /favicon.ico exists?

more options

We have a page where we just added <link rel="icon" type="image/ico" href="/other-path/favicon.ico"/> to the header, but while Firefox reads that link and includes the information in the page (can see in "View Page Info" -> Media), the .ico file specified is overridden by Firefox assuming that <page-path>/favicon.ico is where it should find the favicon. Is this the expected behavior? Every other browser follows this pattern, but Firefox does not (since at least Firefox 39 when I did some testing). Should I write this up in bugzilla?

We have a page where we just added <link rel="icon" type="image/ico" href="/other-path/favicon.ico"/> to the header, but while Firefox reads that link and includes the information in the page (can see in "View Page Info" -> Media), the .ico file specified is overridden by Firefox assuming that <page-path>/favicon.ico is where it should find the favicon. Is this the expected behavior? Every other browser follows this pattern, but Firefox does not (since at least Firefox 39 when I did some testing). Should I write this up in bugzilla?

Všetky odpovede (1)

more options

Rick said

Should I write this up in bugzilla?

Hi Rick, it's worth taking a look in Bugzilla to see whether it has been filed. Sometimes the search done when you start submitting a new bug is more accurate than the regular search box.

If you have a link to a page demonstrating this problem, that might also help.