Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Mark"

Revision as of 15:28, 19 May 2015

Don't use the drag icon as a unit

Hi, not everything in the infobox needs a unit especially if there is no unit. This is especially true for drag as it's just a unit-less coefficient. — xZise [talk] 14:28, 26 October 2014 (CDT)

New 0.90 icons

I think using new 0.90 icons should be better... I mean the icons available in the new editor parts filter system.

Are there many icons which could be replaced by already existing ones here? Also note that most images here are vector graphics and made from hand. Maybe it's possible to get the official images but I don't know how. — xZise [talk] 16:56, 4 January 2015 (CST)

A few of the marks are unsupported by default on windows

Three of the Unicode symbols used for marks, namely:

Science mark - ⚛ - ATOM SYMBOL (U+269B) 
Flag mark - ⚑ - BLACK FLAG (U+2691)
Electric charge mark - ⚡ - HIGH VOLTAGE SIGN (U+26A1)

are not included in any of the default Windows fonts. This isn't a problem for anyone using Firefox, Linux/Mac, or who have installed a font that fully supports Unicode (or a program that includes such a font), but is a problem for many Google Chrome users, because Chrome on Windows only uses the currently installed fonts to render characters, and defaults to a missing character symbol if no fonts support it. All three of those symbols are in the "Miscellaneous Symbols" Unicode block, which is largely unsupported by the default Windows fonts (Arial only renders 12 of the 256 characters in the block).

I can't immediately offer a complete solution, but here's a step in the direction of one. Modern web browsers can be told to download fonts on demand via more advanced CSS. This could possibly be used to specify a font which contains all of the necessary symbols. The missing parts of the fix are that I can't point you at an example font to use, and am not giving the specific CSS for it, just a pointer into Mozilla's docs:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/CSS/@font-face

It looks like it's supported by all major browsers.

--Murph (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)