HN Explorer

10 comments

[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 31.8 ms ] thread
callahad
Maybe I'm missing the point of some Open Graph properties, but in this case... what's wrong with just using the HTML standard <link rel="icon" href="/path.png"> tag, which is already well-specified, well-supported, and even includes an optional "sizes" attribute?

https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/semantics.html#rel-ic...

alexkadis
I agree completely. I don't see why this additional spec is wanted/needed.
maccman
In general we've found that companies are using the icon rel for favicons (16x16 icons) which don't do a good job of representing a company logo at larger sizes.
callahad
If you're looking for positive intent, maybe propose that sites explicitly set the sizes attribute? Either way, you're asking folks to modify their <head>. Embracing the icon rel avoids duplicating effort.
maccman
Yes good point! We'll make sure that we pick up icon rels that point to pngs or jpgs (not icos) too.
test_account_
There are a huge number of cases where application icon (favicon) and corporate logo are not the same thing. For example, Google.
Postscapes
We are planning on using your Logo API (and other APIs) in a new project and really appreciate the service and intent behind this new initiative.
tlb
s/greyscale/grayscale/ please
JeffreyKaine
This is one of those silly english things. Grey/Gray are both acceptable spellings.
notanintern
Half of the companies i searched for were either incorrect logos or ones that clearly looked like a random google image search.