71–80 of 80 posts
I think the Go gopher is, rather than a trademark, a copyrighted work under a CC-Attribution license. The attribution to make this use of it legit could just be adding "Go gopher by Renee French, under CC-Attribution license" to the Note section. (See http://blog.golang.org/gopher.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually you can style SVG with CSS #yourSVG { fill: red; stroke: blue; }
mind = blown
There's a tradeoff between inlining (or rather, including them server-side) and calling them as , background-image, or fonts. The size, http requests, caching , and styling all play a role.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think or you are sure? The creator of the collection is using the logo by putting it on the web page. Also, the logo is licensed under MIT, which he probably cannot do, if he doesn't hold the rights.
'Using the logo' is different from 'using the logo in a manner infringing the holder's trademark'. Simply displaying an Apple logo, for example, and saying 'this is the Apple logo' is perfectly valid. Pretending to be Apple or Apple-endorsed is a different matter.
I am not disagreeing that this is possible, but the parent wasn't sure of the correct position, either.
I wish icon fonts used ligatures to select the right glyph, rather than meaningless codepoints (e.g. you can make font automagically replace characters "git" with the Git logo). Otherwise these fonts end up being used in a non-accessible way (I browse with webfonts disabled and keep seeing boxes instead of images, with no fallback or a useless display:none'd fallback).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the selector is "devicons-netmagazine" so it seems intentional
It's funny that there is a logo for the magazine, but not the programming framework the magazine is actually about.
I wish icon fonts used ligatures to select the right glyph, rather than meaningless codepoints (e.g. you can make font automagically replace characters "git" with the Git logo). Otherwise these fonts end up being used in a non-accessible way (I browse with webfonts disabled and keep seeing boxes instead of images, with no fallback or a useless display:none'd fallback).
Is there an example of a font that does this anywhere?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not web dev question - I'm curious, what is the advantage of using a font rather than images?
Less http petitions and bandwidth. Also, they are vector-based so are great for all resolutions and sizes.
Why Yahoo but no Twitter/Facebook?
There seems to be an embarrassingly large number of people who think web developers == developers.
I think it's all about context. It's been my experience that "developer" is mostly applied to web developers and "programmer" is most often used when talking about desktop application development. In this context I don't think adding the word "web" before "developer" makes it any more clear as it's web developers who mostly use icon fonts and web developers who are the target audience here.
See also: "App developer", "Java developer", "mobile developer", etc. Contrast: "assembly programmer", "COBOL programmer".
Also, this guy is the authority, and he was talking to desktop devs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8To-6VIJZRE