Not sure if SO is the best place for this question, but don't know where else to ask.
Is there any way to transform a svg like this one for ex: (https://svgsilh.com/image/1775543.html) into something that i can use inside an editor with copy/paste like this one? 🦄
No, because the unicorn emoticon is one example of a character. And just as with letters, digits, and punctuation, the appearance of emoticons and other plain-text symbols is decided by fonts.
LSerni wrote the following:
The reason you can "copy and paste" that icon is that the icon already has a UTF-8 code and your editor is UTF-8 aware. And this is why the same emoticon is slightly different between Apple, Android and so on: it's because it's always code XYZ, but code XYZ is rendered with different icons on different platforms.
But that's not entirely correct. The difference in rendering lies more in the font than in the operating system that displays emoticons. Unless the font supplies its own version of a symbol, that symbol will usually be supplied by the font specified by default by the operating system, and different operating systems supply different symbol fonts.
I have found this letter / character in facebook, but how can this have a color? is just insane for me, look this: ✔️
Added image (From Firefox on windows)
It's not an ASCII character, it's likely an emoji. Emoji are part of Unicode and the actual glyph displayed to the user is open to interpretation by the platform displaying it. The spec suggests a name/description, but the implementation varies.
So while you may see a colored check mark, I see black & white. Other times, a single glyph will have multiple styles made available on a particular platform; for example, I can select multiple "skin" tones when I use a smiley face on my iPhone, but your Android device may only show a generic one.
Edit: The image edited into the original post is a perfect example. Using Chrome on Windows, I see a black check mark. The screenshot from Firefox shows green.
The symbols used here aren't ascii-encoded. They use the much more vast range of Unicode encoding. Ascii(extended) is restricted to a 256 symbol set.
The unicode interpretation for symbols/glyphs(small pictorial representation)(these ticks aren't characters), can vary for different platforms as some the range of unicode is open for usage and isn't set as global.
Which is why, while the unicode encryption remains the same for every device irrespective, the decryption is differently interpreted by different devices/online-platforms, allowing us to perceive either a coloured or a black symbol.
Matlab cannot display Arabic/Persian labels of the figure. Also I cannot see my installed fonts and I don't want to add the labels by another program. How can I fix this problem?
What you're looking for is a way to display unicode characters in axes labels.
It seems that this problem was encountered before, but there's no simple solution for it. See workarounds here and here.
One important thing though - do not edit .m files containing unicode\utf-8 characters (such as Arabic, Farsi, Hebrew, Chinese, etc...) in MATLAB, because it messes up the characters upon saving. Use an external editor (like Notepad++) to edit and save the files (as UTF-8 without BOM), and only run in MATLAB.
We have standard flex 3 project, and We have left everything as default, no change in style at all, and we deployed our project and noticed that on Mac the character spacing is very bad and overall look and feel is not as clear as that of windows.
Here is the difference, left one is Windows and right one is Mac.. the default flex font chosen by Adobe is "Verdana", the left one looks pretty, but right one looks as its width and character spacing, everything is incorrect. I assume verdana font may not be available on Mac, but in that case I supposed adobe should have given default standard font of good quality.
alt text http://akashkava.com/images/MacFlashFontProblem.png
What can we do to resolve this? Will embedding Verdana font in flex project style will help?
Mac OS X and Windows have different text rendering engines. I've heard it said that Mac OS X tries to preserve the character shape while Windows tries to align with screen pixels at small sizes.
That's going to result in differences between how fonts are rendered, and there's really no way to work around it.
Personally, I think the example on the right looks much nicer; the one on the left looks square, like it's being rendered at too small a size, while the one on the right looks more like the font is supposed to look.
It's not a solution, but Verdana is available on every OS X box. See this Apple doc for 10.5; I couldn't find one on 10.6 but there is one.
The font used in xterms is extremely compact yet readable. What font is that? The closest I've found that I can use in other other applications is DejaVu Sans Mono or Bitstream Vera Sans Mono. Those are as compact as xterms vertically but take up more space horizontally.
I'd really like to switch from xterms to Terminal.app and this is the one thing holding me back.
(I also think that font would be much better for emacs, xcode, or whatever editor.)
ADDED: In Terminal.app you can adjust the character and line spacing for any font. Is this possible in other applications?
I'm open to any other font that is as compact and readable as the xterm font. Dina looks really nice but it doesn't seem to work for Mac.
I have successfully gotten Emacs.App to use the beloved misc-fixed 7x14 font. And it looks GOOD.
1) download ucs-fonts.tar.gz from http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs-fonts.html
2) extract the file 7x14.bdf
3) install FontForge (fontforge.sourceforge.net)
4) open 7x14.bdf in fontforge
5) in fontforge do File->Generate Fonts with "No Outline Font" and "Apple bitmap only sfont (dfont)"
6) save as /Library/Fonts/FixedMedium7x14.dfont
7) in your .emacs (setq default-font "-apple-Fixed-medium-normal-normal--14----m-0-iso10646-1")
8) WIN
I've really taken a liking to Inconsolata:
http://www.levien.com/type/myfonts/inconsolata.html
But it's not really appropriate for an xterm. Better as a programming font.
I'd strongly suggest Monaco 9pt, not anti-aliased:
Never seen anything as readable and space-efficient. Note that it's the same number of pixels wide as Monaco 10, but slightly shorter.
It's not exactly the same, but 10 point Monaco (with anti-aliasing turned off) is pretty darn close. I'd say it's actually a little better, because Monaco's 1/l and O/0 glyphs are more distinct than the X font's.
Here are alternatives I've tried. (Thanks to Will and others.)
Monaco 10pt with .9 line spacing (I don't know how to squish line or character spacing in anything other than Terminal.app) takes up exactly as much vertical and horizontal space as the xterm font. Without the line space squishing it takes up more vertical space. I don't think the squishing harms readability. Monaco has the advantage of slashed zeros but has worse angle brackets (they bump into adjacent characters awkardly, eg, "~>"). Upper case characters ("A" in particular) also don't look as good in Monaco. Mostly though, they are about the same.
Monaco 9pt fixes the angle brackets and is more vertically compact than the xterm font (same horizontally). Capital I is pretty sucky (hard to distinguish from l and i and |).
ProggyTiny from Proggy Fonts at 11pt. Setting the line spacing to .9 makes it vertically slightly more compact than X11's xterm font. Either way, it takes up exactly as much space horizontally. With or without line space squishing though, I find this option definitively worse than Monaco. The other Proggy varieties seem to not be as compact as the xterm font.
Anonymous at 10pt with .95 character spacing (I still don't know how to squish character or line spacing in anything but Terminal.app) and normal line spacing is exactly the same size as the X11 font. Squishing the character spacing causes upper case characters to touch each other very slightly and numbers are rather ugly that way. With vertical (line) space squishing it can be made more vertically compact than the xterm font without harming readability.
(Anonymous at 9pt is very very compact and still quite readable.) I really don't like the caret ("^") in this font, with or without squishing.
FixedMedium6x13 set to size 13 and line spacing 0.80 yields the xterm font exactly. My friend David Yang reports that this works flawlessly for him on Snow Leopard. I'm on Leopard and it's unusable for me (with squished line spacing that makes it as compact as X11) because there's some kind of refresh problem -- it cuts off the tops of the letters until the terminal window re-renders, like when you alt-tab away from it.
Others I intend to try:
Envy Code R: http://damieng.com/blog/2008/05/26/envy-code-r-preview-7-coding-font-released
Inconsolata: http://www.levien.com/type/myfonts/inconsolata.html
Droid Sans Mono: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droid_(font)
Just use one of these:
http://henrik.synth.no/fonts/6x12.dfont
http://henrik.synth.no/fonts/6x13.dfont
http://henrik.synth.no/fonts/7x13.dfont
http://henrik.synth.no/fonts/7x14.dfont
You might want to adjust the line height to 0.85 when you select the font.
(Thanks to Marty Vona for the guide)
The font used in xterms is extremely
compact yet readable. What font is
that?
The font you are referring to is known as "fixed" or "6x13".
I started (but gave up) a "6x13 redux" which was meant to be one of those TrueType fonts that only looks good at one size but was usable in Terminal.app. I gave up because creating a font with UNICODE glyphs is a HUGE undertaking. Just look at this glyph table for 6x13. BTW, that "6x13 Redux" font I created only seems to work in Terminal.app on Tiger, not on Leopard.
The closest I've come to 6x13 is ProggySquare at 11pt.
My favorite pixel font is 'Dina ttf 10px' at 16pt on a dark background. It makes a great font for coding, since it has slashed zeros, and distinct characters.
You can find the Mac TrueType version at http://www.geenat.com/?p=66
and the original bitmap version at http://www.donationcoder.com/Software/Jibz/Dina/index.html
The Proggy font that Dina is based on is also really sharp at a small text size. Unfortunately, it is a little too small for me.
Additionally, you can use SIMBL plugins to tweak Terminal.app to better suit you. In addition to the color preferences, I find all the plugins below really helpful when using Terminal.
For a start the default colours in Terminal.app are difficult to see. To fix this, you can install Ciaran Walsh's custom color plugin.
SIMBL - http://www.culater.net/software/SIMBL/SIMBL.php
Custom colors - http://ciaranwal.sh/2007/11/01/customising-colours-in-leopard-terminal
Tab Switching (if you prefer CMD-1 instead of CMD-SHIFT-{}/arrow keys) - http://ciaranwal.sh/2007/12/10/tab-switching-in-terminal
Visor - http://visor.binaryage.com/
MegaZoomer for Fullscreen - http://ianhenderson.org/megazoomer.html
The IR_Black color scheme - http://blog.infinitered.com/entries/show/6
X11 default fonts are usually bitmap fonts, which aren't of any use to non-X applications ... on my Mac box, the default font for X11 apps seems to be -misc-fixed-medium-r-normal--14-130-75-75-c-70-iso8859-1, corresponding to the file /usr/X11/lib/X11/fonts/misc/7x14-ISO8859-1.pcf.gz
You can display the character table with the command /usr/X11R6/bin/xfd -fn -misc-fixed-medium-r-normal--14-130-75-75-c-70-iso8859-1 and check if it's the one you see in your xterms. If so, I'm afraid there's nothing to do: PCF fonts are (very) low resolution bitmap fonts, and that's why they look so good on screen, by the way (they just fit with your particular screen resolution); but they're no way other Mac OS X applications are going to use them.
I've been using Bitstream Vera Mono later DeJaVu Sans Mono (for more unicode characters) for quite a long time but I've switched a few months ago to the font used by Android, Google's OS for mobile phones, called Droid Sans Mono. It is really more readable for me. For Terminal.app, I do shrink it a bit horizontally though.
I've created the DinaPro font which is like the original Dina, but for Mac ... http://www.hexagonstar.com/blog/news/dinapro-coding-font-for-mac-released/
Try andale mono without anti-aliasing... it looks good on my mac pro 15in