Suggestion: Further Default Normalization Styles

[bhadaway]

.si {
    display: inline-block;
    font-family: 'Simple Icons', sans-serif;
    font-style: normal;
    line-height: normal;
    vertical-align: middle;
}

PS: Unless I'm just being a complete dumb-dumb, the actual /font/ folder appears to be missing from the GitHub repo? I had to go to unpkg.com to find the font files and download them.

[mondeja]

Nope, the folder is there. Are you really sure that you're not getting it? This is the output in my console:

$ npm i --no-save simple-icons-font
$ tree node_modules/simple-icons-font
node_modules/simple-icons-font
├── DISCLAIMER.md
├── font
│   ├── simple-icons.css
│   ├── SimpleIcons.eot
│   ├── simple-icons.min.css
│   ├── SimpleIcons.otf
│   ├── SimpleIcons.ttf
│   ├── SimpleIcons.woff
│   └── SimpleIcons.woff2
├── LICENSE.md
├── package.json
└── README.md

1 directory, 11 files

[bhadaway]

Oh, I see. The fonts are generated dynamically through installation, for obvious practical reasons? They're not just sitting in a folder plainly, within the repo. I'm setting them up manually and just needed to straight download them, so that's why I was a bit confused.

[mondeja]

Could you explain why we must add the following CSS properties?

        font-style: normal;
    line-height: normal;
    vertical-align: middle;

[bhadaway]

I threw together a quick demonstration:

https://bryanhadaway.com/testing/simple-icons.html

[mondeja]

Thanks, but are the font-style: normal and line-height: normal properties needed? I can see the icon correctly positionated as well if I remove them:

[bhadaway]

Yes, they're needed. This is just a vanilla test, so doesn't take into account some common variables that might take place out in the wild.

font-style: normal protects the icons from warping if they're added between <em></em> tags. Note: this is already in the existing style reset.

line-height: normal protects the icons from overflow problems that can occur (especially on mobile) if the user has set the icons to a big enough size.

I even ran into an issue where I needed to use text-shadow: none, but that probably really is too aggressive in terms of finding the right balance for most users.

---

For what it's worth, I actually came up with my own hybrid solution where I combined the font method with actual svgs so that I could benefit from a lighter front-end load (the font method adds over 1mb to page load, and my method brings that down to under 100kb) and the responsiveness of svgs. Anyway, that's a discussion for another day, if anyone's interested.

[mondeja]

Thank you for the report, but I think that:

• If an user puts an icon inside em tags it goes without saying that he wanted it to appear in italics. I suspect that the wrapping problem has to do with the source itself, I have opened #162 to track it.

  

• normal is the default value for the line-height property in CSS, so there are no need for that addition, it would be redundant.

For the problem of high load added by fonts, that's true. It would be great to expose the build process to create a customized build, filtering by icons slugs. I've opened #163 to track it.

So I'm fine with adding vertical-align: middle but I want to study before what other icon fonts like FontAwesome do.

[bhadaway]

Just a quick reminder that I'm not suggesting the addition of font-style: normal; it's already in the official code:

https://github.com/simple-icons/simple-icons-font/blob/develop/scripts/templates/base.css

The logic (I would assume) would be that while it's technically a font, that that's only a formality as a trick/method for delivering icons that shouldn't otherwise be treated like text. The same logic applies to line-height: normal and maybe there should even be font-weight: normal too. The icons should only appear exactly as intended concerning the shape/design of each respective icon, without warping/stylization of any kind beyond size and color.

Anyway, that's all I have to offer on the subject; I'll let you take it from here.

Thanks