Talk:ICO (file format)

message: I have personally built icons using my own custom icon creation software and Windows XP will correctly read icons which are 256x256 and even larger.  Though it does not have any avenue in which to display them natively, if no other image is available, one can be read by Windows and resized to fit its needs.  
Nonetheless, Windows XP does support storage of files at and larger than 256x256 pixels.  As this is demonstratable, , I have updated the page to reflect this.  I also updated the page to correctly portray the requirements of the AND bitmap in 32-bit images.
--Flobi (talk) 08:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the directory entry, icon sizes are stored in an 8-bit unsigned integer. How do you propose an icon larger than 256x256 is stored? Would it just be 0, and then the BMP header shows that it is larger than 256x256, as with the color counts of images with more than 256 colors? Either way, we're digging into the area of original research here. Λύκος 23:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be correct.  In fact, I have personally tested this.  I have raised the dimension limitation on my icon assembler  to 300x300 if anyone would like to see it in action.  In fact, here's a 300x300 test: .  I guess you could say that I am doing original research on this, not specifically for Wikipedia, but when I noticed this page, I figured I'd share.  I'm also looking into the possibility of using the 4th byte of the palette for alpha transparency , the effective nature of inversion  and a number of other things.  Actually, every piece of info on this page: , I have personally verified or uncovered.  --Flobi (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  256x256 support added in Vista incorrect 

message: Are you sure? Because icons can store even monochrome images. Shinobu (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know 16 color icons were supported in 3.x, I don't know about before that. Plugwash (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Originally 32×32 pixels square and using 16 colors 

message: Hi everyone.
Summarily, the problems include:
# This section uses weasel words
# This section uses the unclear terms "native mode" and "native support". It is unclear as to what is the distinction between native and non-native and to what these terms apply.
# This section uses the term "apply" to describe the use of XOR and AND bitmaps but does not explain how exactly they are applied. I still do not under stand what is the use of XOR or AND bitmaps.
# This section uses the term "overflow read" which is not described and probably is a weasel word.
Here is copy of problematic areas tagged:
Fleet Command (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section [[ICO (file format)#Icon sizes, color depths, and transparency data|Icon sizes, color depths, and transparency data]]: Unclear and rife with weasel words 

message: file types for icons include: ico, png, bmp, gif, icns. there's no need to explain all  the others here, and so there's no need to explain png.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnywhy (talk • contribs) 02:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is your source? Fleet Command (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  PNG info is not necessary here 

message: It's almost a bit of advertising to have the CUR format mentioned, especially when there is no page referencing this technology. The article is about .ICO.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajpaj (talk • contribs) 05:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. Articles in Wikipedia must be broad in coverage and CUR has so much similarity of context with ICO that must be covered. Advertisement only applies to either competing products or subjects of insufficient similarity of context. Fleet Command (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  CUR is not necessary 

message: The first link in the references section aggressively attacks visitors with sucksass with buying whatever their merchandise displayed instead of actual content. Since it is just another wordpress website i suggest to replace with more friendly source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.140.240.108 (talk) 04:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam 

message: ... lacks the facts. Who proposed dummy resource only executables? When? Why?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.140.244.14 (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Icon library section 

message: I was just thinking: why is this article called ICO (file format), but the one on IPA called .ipa (file extension) George8211 conversations 21:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency 

message: About these recent edits by User:ï¿½, which were made to "remove POV-pushing", "look more neutral", and "let the reader judge":
* The citation for the statement "Until version 11, Microsoft Internet Explorer required the type image/x-icon instead" was removed, then "[not in citation given]" was added. The original citation states "IE11 dropped the type attribute requirement." In other words, IE11 and later don't care whether you say image/x-icon, image/vnd.microsoft.icon, or something else entirely.
* Linux, Microsoft HealthVault, and the Apache web server (on any operating system) use image/vnd.microsoft.icon. Note that the existence of Microsoft software using image/vnd.microsoft.icon makes the newly readded statement "image/vnd.microsoft.icon...is not recognised by Microsoft software" misleading at best. The only current software I can find that doesn't use image/vnd.microsoft.icon is Microsoft IIS, which is still using image/x-icon.
I absolutely agree that image/x-icon should be mentioned in the article, but portraying it as an equally respected alternative gives it undue weight. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  MIME type 

message: Footnote 2 currently states:
Is the BITMAPFILEHEADER reference mistaken for BITMAPINFOHEADER in this instance? 77.85.137.10 (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote 2 on ICONDIRENTRY 256+ size/dimension