Closed Berkmann18 closed 5 years ago
Have you refreshed your browser cache? It works with me. Here is a test page: https://codesandbox.io/s/5m2lk42434
Yup, still not showing up. Here's the repo for reference.
Yup, still not showing up.
What do you mean? You can't see the icons in the Code Sandbox linked in my previous post? Which browser are you using on which system? Can you see the icons being displayed on our official website? https://forkaweso.me
And btw, the repo you reference to does not use Fork Awesome, but uses Font Awesome 5.2.0 https://github.com/Berkmann18/Berkmann18.github.io/blob/023a48973ceb8e1ceed6316bb4ff7139246b3236/about.html#L8
@xuv he was referencing the dev branch ;-)
@Berkmann18 it looks like you are using both fonts: https://github.com/Berkmann18/Berkmann18.github.io/blob/dev/dist/about.html#L8
Please remove line 8 and try again.
I think I know what you are trying to do, but it won't work. The 2 fonts use the same namespace and after the fork the unicode character points started to diverge. You cannot use both fonts at the same time. e.g. using an icon from one when it's not available in the other.
What do you mean? You can't see the icons in the Code Sandbox linked in my previous post?
No, I can see them there but not on my web pages.
Which browser are you using on which system?
Chrome on Win10
Can you see the icons being displayed on our official website?
Yup.
@xuv he was referencing the dev branch ;-)
Indeed.
Please remove line 8 and try again.
I think I know what you are trying to do, but it won't work. The 2 fonts use the same namespace and after the fork the unicode character points started to diverge. You cannot use both fonts at the same time. e.g. using an icon from one when it's not available in the other.
Yes, I'm using both and MFizz as well as ForkAwesome and MFizz has icons that aren't in FA (including some that aren't in ForkAwesome) but I'm trying to eliminate two out three when possible.
But I'll try that and see what happens.
Hmm, I reckon that MFizz either uses a different namespace and/or uses different codepoints.
Maybe @xuv has an idea, if there's any chance we could make this work. Maybe we could create a new startpoint for ForkAwesome icons at current level +10,000 or something. On the other hand this would break the current implementation, when people are using the current codepoints. So I'm afraid we are back at square one.
So, by commenting out <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://use.fontawesome.com/releases/v5.2.0/css/all.css" integrity="sha384-hWVjflwFxL6sNzntih27bfxkr27PmbbK/iSvJ+a4+0owXq79v+lsFkW54bOGbiDQ" crossorigin="anonymous">
on both index.html
and about.html
.
I renamed all the fas
and fab
classes to fa
(since that's the only namespace class used) but I see even less icons then when both FAs were used.
That behaviour happens on both files where the icons are simply not visible (even when I disable my CSS file).
Hmm, I reckon that MFizz either uses a different namespace and/or uses different codepoints.
Yup, MFizz uses icon-[name]
and no namespace like fa
(e.g: icon-webpack
) and those icons are displaying correctly.
The integrity
check property is wrong. Full link should be:
<link rel="stylesheet" href="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/fork-awesome/1.1.6/css/fork-awesome.css" integrity="sha256-kdV2mkChqt3z0hO8yZH5Aj+rDViItN8n9iu91TAPjlA=" crossorigin="anonymous" />
@xuv actually it should be:
<link rel="stylesheet" href="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/fork-awesome@1.1.6/css/fork-awesome.min.css" integrity="sha256-nJE8Vg3b3QQ9hPPpmtsRHKm/nauV4PZiBw5mpSgOvQQ=" crossorigin="anonymous">
or
<link rel="stylesheet" href="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/fork-awesome/1.1.6/css/fork-awesome.min.css" integrity="sha256-kdV2mkChqt3z0hO8yZH5Aj+rDViItN8n9iu91TAPjlA=" crossorigin="anonymous" />
(you want to use the minimized version)
Also, you can't use Font Awesome and Fork Awesome at the same time.
You will need to rebuild Fork Awesome and change the CSS prefix to whatever you feel like, but not fas
, fab
or icon
...
https://github.com/ForkAwesome/Fork-Awesome/blob/c14e361ccb9d5a266e523e04d8626cf828343d59/_config.yml#L27
(you want to use the minimized version)
Good catch, I tried to use your Cloundflare URL but it got blocked so this is the correct one:
<link rel="stylesheet" href="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/fork-awesome/1.1.6/css/fork-awesome.min.css" integrity="sha256-nJE8Vg3b3QQ9hPPpmtsRHKm/nauV4PZiBw5mpSgOvQQ=" crossorigin="anonymous" />
(note: the nJE8Vg3b3QQ9hPPpmtsRHKm/nauV4PZiBw5mpSgOvQQ=
part which is, according to Chrome, the correct hash).
FYI:
fa-sass
is only available in FontAwesome but not on this FA (I noticed this after using the URL above).fa-html5
and fa-database
show up as squares.fa-dev
is ForkAwesome's fa-dev-to
(in case you want to keep icons with the same names).@xuv
Also, you can't use Font Awesome and Fork Awesome at the same time. You will need to rebuild Fork Awesome and change the CSS prefix to whatever you feel like, but not
fas
,fab
oricon
...
I'm aware of that (fun fact: it previously worked for quite a few icons).
Also, as I mentioned above, icon-...
(not to confuse with a icon
class) is what MFizz uses (I hope to get rid of that as soon as this FA has what it's missing) and it's not clashing with either FAs.
In any case, index.html
now works.
But about.html
, not yet (note: the mf
class is just a temp class to differentiate the MFizz icons from FA's ones).
Glad you found a solution. I'm going to be closing this issue then.
Thanks for mentioning the differences in naming for fa-dev-to
. Since this icon was added post fork for both project, it is expected that there are incompatibilities. These projects are taking two very distinct directions. There is a file to ease the transition, but ultimately, people will have to choose one or the other. Or build their own.
You're welcome to create a new icon request for fa-sass
or other missing icons in different issues if you wish. And good luck on the personal website.
@xuv Well, it's mostly resolved, I'll have a look at it sometime in a few days (whenever I can) and see why icons such as fa-html5
and fa-database
are replaced by a character square unlike the rest (a bit strange no?).
Thanks for mentioning the differences in naming for
fa-dev-to
. Since this icon was added post fork for both project, it is expected that there are incompatibilities. These projects are taking two very distinct directions. There is a file to ease the transition, but ultimately, people will have to choose one or the other. Or build their own.
That makes sense, is there a process in place where new icons added to FontAwesome are going in a pipeline/list/board to be added to ForkAwesome or do you not take into account what was added since the fork happened?
The reason, I'm asking this is because FontAwesome had some additions (fa-sass
being one of them) and I was wondering if, like the pull-bot, there's something in place to deal with that.
You're welcome to create a new icon request for
fa-sass
or other missing icons in different issues if you wish. And good luck on the personal website.
Okay, I'll do that when I'm free and also check if the icons that MFizz has which FA doesn't were already suggested. Thank you 😄.
That makes sense, is there a process in place where new icons added to FontAwesome are going in a pipeline/list/board to be added to ForkAwesome or do you not take into account what was added since the fork happened?
There are no plans like this. FontAwesome doubled the number of icons they added since 4.7. And I don't think we should plan to stay compatible. We are doing our best to ease the transition for people who want to, but our public is probably quite different. And the direction we took is also quite different. I hope that makes sense. Now, we are always open to add new icons if there is a community use for them, whether they exist in Font Awesome or not.
And sorry for closing the issue a little early. It seems to me though that this is not a problem related to Fork Awesome at all. I might be wrong though.
There are no plans like this. FontAwesome doubled the number of icons they added since 4.7. And I don't think we should plan to stay compatible. We are doing our best to ease the transition for people who want to, but our public is probably quite different. And the direction we took is also quite different. I hope that makes sense. Now, we are always open to add new icons if there is a community use for them, whether they exist in Font Awesome or not.
That's understandable.
And sorry for closing the issue a little early. It seems to me though that this is not a problem related to Fork Awesome at all. I might be wrong though.
You're probably right, I need to double check and see if I can reproduce that scenario elsewhere and see where the problem lies.
EDIT: You're right, it was on my side.
In the
v1.1.6
release, icons likefa-bootstrap
,fa-hashnode
,fa-c
,fa-gimp
,fa-inkscape
and evenfa-php
(although this one is available on FA) aren't displayed when I'm viewing an HTML page.I'm using the stylesheet from https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/fork-awesome/1.1.6/css/fork-awesome.min.css,