Forum favico is unsuitable and huge, need replacing.

[Attila Kovacs 629]

@Kas Ob. I've created an ico with svg inside manually and it won't be recognized as a valid ico by any app. The file format does not restrict on any image formats indeed, but nothing is supported beside bmp and png.

[Anders Melander 1783]

2 minutes ago, Attila Kovacs said:

 I've created an ico with svg inside manually and it won't be recognized as a valid ico by any app.

How did you do that?

The ICO file format only supports BMP and PNG images, so I'm really curious about how you manages to get something else inside it?

 

As I understand it, SVG favicons are meant to be separate external SVG files so you would have both a favicon.ico and a favicon.svg...

[Attila Kovacs 629]

2 minutes ago, Anders Melander said:

How did you do that?

Hiew+Far. Piece of cake.

[Anders Melander 1783]

2 minutes ago, Attila Kovacs said:

Piece of cake

Cake in your face it seems 🙂

You can't just use a hex editor to insert whatever you like into an icon. How is the application reading the file supposed to know what the icon contains?

[Attila Kovacs 629]

He wrote that ico supports bmp, png, svg... 😉 I didn't believe it so I tested it.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Anders Melander said:

Cake in your face it seems 🙂

Lol , i did it in similar way   ,it can be done easily with HexWorkshop and its ico.hsl structure file. 

29 minutes ago, Attila Kovacs said:

I've created an ico with svg inside manually and it won't be recognized as a valid ico by any app. The file format does not restrict on any image formats indeed, but nothing is supported beside bmp and png.

I honestly can't remember which browser used it and when, but i am sure i saw it in the past , please have a look here: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=294179 , some of what i recall it was opera not Chrome, but again i might be wrong, and here i am talking about svg in ico not simple svg as favicon.

 

As for what supported and what not in ico file, the thing is the ico file format is de facto standard, and that why Axialis is restricting the dimensions and format as it see fits, it restrict creating a project with specific format for specific consumer software.

 

 

[Anders Melander 1783]

7 minutes ago, Kas Ob. said:

I honestly can't remember which browser used it and when, but i am sure i saw it in the past , please have a look here: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=294179

That issue is about favicon in SVG format. Not about ICO files with SVG inside.

 

8 minutes ago, Kas Ob. said:

Axialis is restricting the dimensions and format as it see fits, it restrict creating a project with specific format for specific consumer software

True and it makes perfect sense as I'm sure they would drown in support cases if they allowed producing non-standard icon files.

But apart from that it doesn't make sense to stuff SVG into the ICO file format if Windows doesn't support it. The ICO format is a Windows resource file format for icons and cursors. If 3rd parties started adding non-standard support for SVG it would just fragment the format.

[Guest]

I can't find a software support SVG in ico file now, tried even searched my archive for old portable browsers and nothing there and i couldn't find that ico file, the one a friend show me and explained how dimensions in image entry list will be used to identify which svg to be used, but i can't remember if he mentioned reserved field been used or not, what the file name was.

[Attila Kovacs 629]

37 minutes ago, Anders Melander said:

they would drown in support cases if they allowed producing non-standard icon files

Windows 10 explorer displays the png compressed 32x32 icon preview so I assume it's a standard now but it's not documented anywhere.

Which I also understand as the whole thing is just a crap and could have been only saved by this png hack. But sooner or later they have to dump it or redesign it.

Edited October 17, 2019 by Attila Kovacs

[Guest]

The strange thing is favicon is mentioned in only one internet standards ( https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6585.txt ) and used a link to Wikipedia as reference.

Stranger is ico file format is not described by Microsoft anywhere and Microsoft recommend Axialis 

from https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/uxguide/vis-icons

Quote

Step 5: Create the .ico file

....

• Both of the products listed below have been used by designers who have produced icons for Windows Vista, and each offers the ability to export to Adobe Photoshop CS.
  • Gamani Gif Movie Gear: Produce .ico file
  • Axialis Icon Workshop: Produce .ico file
• Visual Studio doesn't support Windows Vista icons (there is no support for alpha channel or more than 256 colors), so its use is not recommended.

 

23 minutes ago, Attila Kovacs said:

Which I also understand as the whole thing is just a crap and could have been only saved by this png hack. But sooner or later they have to dump it or redesign it.

There is no need for any PNG in the favicon just the uncompressed BMP format with 32bit color depth. simply all what i was pointing to is with 32x32 pixel the favicon size will be something between 1-15kb instead of 358kb for unsupported dimensions that no browser will use.

[Anders Melander 1783]

5 minutes ago, Kas Ob. said:

Stranger is ico file format is not described by Microsoft anywhere

Sure it is. It's just hard to find these days.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/ms997538(v=msdn.10)

 

[Attila Kovacs 629]

3 minutes ago, Anders Melander said:

It's just hard to find these days

From 1995.

Did you read the disclaimer?

[Anders Melander 1783]

1 minute ago, Attila Kovacs said:

From 1995.

Did you read the disclaimer?

What about it?

The content is still perfectly valid.

[Daniel 417]

You're getting slightly off-topic now.

[Guest]

@Anders Melander Thank you, that i think clear many things.

And thank you for the Resource Editor, really useful and neat, the ability to edit EXE manifest is breath of fresh air.

[Guest]

Just now, Daniel said:

You're getting slightly off-topic now.

Still worth it, i am feel better knowing more about ico ( more accurate and modern information ) and i found resource editor 🙂

Thank you all.

[Attila Kovacs 629]

11 minutes ago, Anders Melander said:

The content is still perfectly valid.

It's not valid for the latest ICO format.

As I already mentioned, we don't care Windows XP and co. anymore.