How can we check that what font the browser is using? - meta-tags

I have used font-family in css as simsun. But there is no font in my system called simsun but I have to know what the font is taken by a browser to display.

Try cutting and pasting into word (or another word processor), and then look at what font word is using.

It depends on browser. But you can set list of fonts in your css-file:
font-family:'Lucida Grande','Verdana',sans-serif;

Related

Is it possible to show a web font's defined missing glyph U+0000 in a web browser? A.k.a. the ".notdef" or "not found" glyph

I'm working on some web font subsets and want to see what my font's notdef / U+0000 character looks like on-screen, in a browser.
I've tried printing known-missing glyphs like è, which every browser (old and new, Mac and Win) shows properly but in a some kind of fallback font.
I've tried printing  but it doesn't show what is defined in my actual custom font. IE11 shows the White Square U+25A1, while every other browser shows the Replacement Character U+FFFD.
Steps to solve:
CSS? Remove all other css font-family fallbacks except my custom font. Result: Does not work.
CSS? Specify unicode-range: U+0000;, does not change anything.
Browser? Can confirm browser behavior is the reason I can't see my fallback glyph. Browser shows serif as default for undefined glyphs.
Question remains: How can I show my font's specific U+0000 / notdef in the browser? Maybe it can't be done? May have to create an extra font and fill it with notdef glyphs?
And why do browsers show  as serif instead of the custom font's definition?
The only way I've found to force-show a font's built-in .notdef glyph is to go to unicode-table.com, click COPY and paste the character into my UTF-8 html.
(||) each print the font's built-in Replacement Character used to replace an unknown, unrecognized, or unrepresentable character. This even applies to fonts as basic as Arial, Times New Roman and Courier + Courier New.
EDIT: Firefox 52-94 will always show it's own built-in .notdef character.

Display approval sign/check mark (✓) on Kivy Label

I am working on a Kivy(Python) Project and I need to display approval(✓) and cross(X) symbol in different scenario. I can display cross symbol but unable to display other one. Is there any way to do this ? Thanks.
Note: I have tried, writing text:'✓' and text:u'2713' under Label in .kv file but it doesn't work.
The font supplied with Kivy doesn't include the tick mark. You need to use fonts that include those symbols. Tick is available in fonts Arial Unicode MS, Wingdings and Wingdings 2. You can download the font ttf file and have it in the same folder with your script.
Link to download the font
https://www.download-free-fonts.com/details/88978/arial-unicode-ms
Then include the font and use it in the label as follow:
Label:
font_name:'arial-unicode-ms.ttf'
text: "This is the tick ✓"
Bro I was also troubling from same problem from morning but now I figured it out actually so I would like to share it with you.I used below code:
def wrong_btn(self):
self.ids.wrong_button.text = u"⌫" self.ids.wrong_button.font_name=r"C:\Users\95532\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Fonts\Arial-Unicode-MS.ttf"
I used this to specify the folder in which the font is stored so you can also download the font you want and just specify the path and don't forget use a r i.e raw string mark or else it wont work I wasted my whole day searching for that hope this helps you bro

unicode box-drawing does not render correctly in browsers

I recently discovered this historical document, which purports to act as a test of UTF-8 encoding for whatever application displays it.
When I paste it into my terminal (iterm2), it loads the box drawings at the end beautifully (except for a couple at bottom right):
But in both Chrome and Firefox, they are crooked and clearly wrong:
It seems the difference has to do with the width of the rendered character: for example "╲" displays in my terminal as wide as other characters such as "a", but in the browser it displays wider.
Is this a deliberate choice, and if so what inspired it? If not, where is the right place to file a bug?
EDIT
Thanks to Tom Blodget's answer, I am now aware that fonts are an important consideration. I'll clarify:
In my screenshots above, Firefox and Chrome are using Courier as the monospace font, while the terminal is using Monaco. In both contexts, the font seems to apply as much to the box-drawing characters as to the ASCII ones: when I change the font, the appearance of the drawings changes as well as that of the surrounding text.
When I switch the terminal to either Courier or Courier New, it shows the box drawings equally well -- in some ways better!
When I switch either browser to Monaco, it still shows the box drawings wrong, again from characters apparently displaying at a wider-than-monospace width.
So it still seems like the browsers are doing something wrong.
When I go to dev tools, I see the entire test is one pre element. Several fonts are being used on my system. Everything looks okay except the hatch pattern on the right.
If I hack out all of the other text, the only font used is Consolas and it looks okay. I think it's down to which fonts you have, how the browser prioritizes them, especially when it has to use more than one, and (conjecture) two monospaced fonts need not have the same width.
A terminal is likely to be less adept at using multiple fonts, instead, using one fixed one or selecting one "best" match for the required characters.
[Google Chrome 72.0.3626.96 on Windows 10.]
This is likely the same as https://bugs.debian.org/981577
If you have any old fonts installed that don't cover the unicode BOX DRAWING range, it's likely that your browser is stitching them together. While each font itself might be monospace (each glyph is the same width within the font), the combination of fonts might not be monospace (because glyph width differs between fonts), which is why the alignment fails.
I found on my system that uninstalling the legacy Bitstream Vera font resolved the issue. (Bitstream Vera has been superseded by DejaVu Sans)

What is default fallback font of FoxIt Reader on linux

I'm making a PDF and I don't want to embed fonts inside it.
When I used Tahoma Foxit Reader substituted it for some default font on linux.
What is this font?
What font should I use so the Foxit Reader will not have to substitute font?
Installing fonts is not an option since the Client should be able to view this PDF on linux without having to install some fonts and stuff. Can't embed whole fonts since the PDF grows from 100KB to 1000KB then, can't also embed subset of font because used component doesn't allow it.
I want to know this font since I use EASTERN_EUROPEAN charset for special chars in PDF and when the font is substituted it falls back to some default charset and the special chars are trash. So I guess if I set the font to default fallback one + my charset, it should be ok.
Please someone tell me the default font that is used in Foxit Reader.
Thanks

How do browser get the required font file?

I was searching through the net and couldn't find the exact answer.
How do browsers get the exact .ttf file for a font family specified in the css? Does it already have it in its code or does it pick from the user's system. I guess we can always specify the custom font files using the #font-face but what about the normal general fonts like arial etc?
The process is obviously different between browsers and operating systems, but in short, browsers pick the font from the system, and if it’s not installed, the font will be replaced with another similar font.

Resources