afaik, some versions of the Chrome browser used to pick the most appropriate size. If the browser tab needs 32x32 (which is likely), depending on the device and Chrome version, the browser might pick a 32 ico instead of the svg
at the time of writing the suggested code, with an ico size of 16 or 32, my Chrome sometimes loaded both the ICO and SVG, or just the ICO. In the newest version on my desktop (114.0.5735.134), this doesn't happen with a size of 16 or 32 any more. Haven't checked on Android this time.
last not least, afaik, Google uses the .ico for the web search results, so a bigger .ico might scale better
Hi @darrylnoakes and @xcuses ! Thanks a lot for your contributions. I'm currently rewriting the article to reflect what you have discovered. Writing forces me to think hard about the reason behind the HTML code, and now I'm not very sure why we need sizes="any" for the SVG favicon. Darryl's test suggests it doesn't really matter (at least for now) whether SVG favicon has sizes="any" or not. So is it for making the HTML code future-proof? Why would the SVG favicon without sizes="any" not be chosen if Chromium browsers strictly followed the expected logic?
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Yes there are reasons why I chose 48x48:
As a note, I am using 48x48 in my project.
Hi @darrylnoakes and @xcuses ! Thanks a lot for your contributions. I'm currently rewriting the article to reflect what you have discovered. Writing forces me to think hard about the reason behind the HTML code, and now I'm not very sure why we need
sizes="any"for the SVG favicon. Darryl's test suggests it doesn't really matter (at least for now) whether SVG favicon hassizes="any"or not. So is it for making the HTML code future-proof? Why would the SVG favicon withoutsizes="any"not be chosen if Chromium browsers strictly followed the expected logic?