I wonder if the text: "Sorry, your browser does not support inline SVG." inside a SVG, is affecting SEO?  &lt;svg width="100" height="100"&gt;     &lt;circle cx="50" cy="50" r="40" stroke="green" stroke-width="4" fill="yellow" /&gt;     Sorry, your browser does not support inline SVG. &lt;/svg&gt;
121153
Example:  &lt;svg&gt;&lt;text&gt;Hello World&lt;/text&gt;&lt;/svg&gt;?
42245
A few weeks ago, Flairs were sent to the client as HTML data (in one way or another). Now they are simpler to use—a single PNG is generated and sent to the client. This is a good improvement, except for one tiny detail: Flairs contain a lot of text and straight lines, and these elements aren't appropriate to store as a bitmapped image. Particularly text looks bad without the subpixel antialiasing appropriate for the output screen. In addition, whereas the old flairs looked good when you zoomed the web page, the new ones, being bitmapped images, do not scale at all. Hence, the flairs looked and worked much better before, but are easier to use now.  Now, I am not an expert on web design, but I think I have found a solution: generate SVG (vector) images instead of PNG (bitmap) images! These can be embedded on a web page like any PNG image:  &lt;img src="http://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/flair/XXXXXX.svg" /&gt;   instead of  &lt;img src="http://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/flair/XXXXXX.png" /&gt;   Hence, the simplicity is conserved. But SVG images are vector images, so text is sent as text, and rendered using the subpixel antialiasing appropriate at the client (and you can select and copy it as normal text). Also, being a vector image, it scales perfectly.  Of course I am aware that many browsers still doesn't support SVG images, but as far as I know, the latest versions of all major browsers do (or will very shortly (IE9)) support SVG. Another problem is that it might not be entirely trivial to embed the bitmap "Gravatar" in a SVG image, but to the best of my knowledge, it is possible (and not even too difficult).  I suggest that you start to support both PNG and SVG flairs. This way, webmasters may choose to support old browers at the cost of quality, or they may not. They may even check the browser name and version (either server-side or using JavaScript) and choose SVG if possible, and use PNG only as fallback for old browsers.
51657
What is currently the best way to get a favicon to display in all browsers that currently support it?  Please include:   Which image formats are supported by which browsers. Which lines are needed in what places for the various browsers.
47676
Of late, I've noticed that many web sites seem to be using light grey text for many sections of their sites. Some such sections include - the text (link, usually) that shows in the status bar at the bottom of the browser when you hover the mouse over a link on their page, the indicator text in form fields to be filled in (e.g. the word "email" in the email address field), and many other elements on the page.  That light grey makes it much less readable.    Not sure whether is a new trend, or something to do with my browser settings (I haven't changed them lately, AFAIK), or Google Chrome, which is my browser. This is on Windows 7 running on a Dell Vostro laptop. I added the info about the laptop because I suspect the problem may even be due to my hardware settings, since I found the default brightness to be too high after I bought it, and changed it via Control Panel.  Would like to know what are some of the things I can check or change to solve this.  Thanks.
75288
A question from  popped up in the "Hot Network Questions" list, and I couldn't help but notice that its icon is a little bit... lacking.        Shouldn't there be some letters there or something? Maybe "Ec"? Both the main site and the meta are equally nondescript.             As pointed out by  in the comments, this is a high-DPI specific issue.     This is another one of those "shows up on normal DPI, but breaks on high DPI" bugs because  is missing the Ec, but  is not.
34555
I've seen this popping up a lot lately. Users have been putting images inside blockquotes to add the darker border around the image so it doesn't look like the image "blends into the background" and is easier to tell it's an image.        How would I ever know that this image isn't part of the normal content without the border!? Ok, bad example (if you hate unicorns!!!). This happens a lot more often on meta when posting screenshots of the website.  It doesn't bother me so much, so I don't really care. But being the HTML semantics freak I am, I don't like the idea of putting images inside blockquotes just to create a border effect. So I'm curious how much of a problem people think this is, and if images should have a border applied to them to make them stand out. Where does everyone stand on this?
7162
Is there a word-wrap or any other attribute that stops text from wrapping?  I have a height, and overflow:hidden, and the text still breaks.  Needs to work in all browsers, before CSS3.
100506
I see bold and italics button but no inline code while it uses quite an uncommon syntax (back ticks, `` - the syntax is good, just not very obvious). It would be convenient to have this button.  Related but not the same:
32319
I was entering an issue on Stack Overflow and one of the auto-suggestions had HTML in the title, and it seemed to break the rendering in my browser.  I'm using the latest stable FireFox for Windows 8.1.  Title of question to reproduce the issue:  Showing m.bing.com in the WebBrowser control   See screenshot:
111971
What special formatting tricks can be done in the comments now?  Proven:   **text** or __text__ = Bolding = text *text* or _text_ = Italics = text `text` = Code Formatting = text [example](http://example.com "title") Inline links with title and text http://example.com plain old links   Disproven:   Cannot insert &lt;kbd&gt; (i.e. F12) characters Cannot use #[text] to increase size
31273
Switching mode for how the questions with ignored tags will be handled has weird visual behavior (blue circle size is too large) on localized sites, e.g. :        Seems this is happens due to the existence of the second line of option description.  Here is on MSE it looks valid:
33266
Script 1: Does not Work  &lt;apex:page &gt;     &lt;apex:stylesheet value="{!URLFOR($Resource.slds221, 'assets/styles/salesforce-lightning-design-system.min.css')}"/&gt;     &lt;svg aria-hidden="true" class="slds-icon slds-icon--x-small slds-icon-text-default slds-is-sortable__icon"&gt;         &lt;use xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="{!URLFOR($Resource.slds221, 'assets/icons/utility-sprite/svg/symbols.svg#email')}"&gt;&lt;/use&gt;     &lt;/svg&gt; &lt;/apex:page&gt;   I can't see any icon on my page. However when I remove stylesheet reference it renders fine. What am I missing  Script 2: This Works (Removed slds-static reference)  &lt;apex:page &gt;     &lt;svg aria-hidden="true" class="slds-icon slds-icon--x-small slds-icon-text-default slds-is-sortable__icon"&gt;         &lt;use xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="{!URLFOR($Resource.slds221, 'assets/icons/utility-sprite/svg/symbols.svg#email')}"&gt;&lt;/use&gt;     &lt;/svg&gt; &lt;/apex:page&gt;
36908
For some reason and for many years there's a limit for font size in Illustrator. It is 1296 points max, so you can't go bigger without converting type to outlines first. Converting to outlines means you will not be able to edit type parameters and text it-self. Don't know how about you, but this makes me sad in non-destructive editing era.  What's your workaround?
44376
I wanted to amplify the effect of specifying the font size. So I tried: {\tiny\tiny Super tiny text!} But that doesn't seem to work. I needed suggestions to achieve the same goal.
118033
Please look at the image. The right column's text jumbles with some comment text when the comment contains a large amount of white-space inside an inline code block. I guess that's not the design may be the comments should be a little bit more restricted from expanding? What do you think?    Now even kinda worse:
48124
How are people showing keyboard &quot;glyphs&quot; on Super User? I looked at the Markdown help page and it didn't show anything regarding this. Here is  (question has been deleted since this was asked, so an archive link is provided instead):
108707
You can search for anything on Google, right? At least, so I thought. I was trying to see how the special characters get encoded in the url, like how &amp; gets converted to %26. I started searching for *. It did not get encoded, but weirdly google didn't tell me that it was an asterisk symbol. All other search engines (yahoo, bing, duckduckgo) did.   See for yourself : . Basically it treats it as a regular expression. So *+* will also not give any results. Still, shouldn't Google at least say that * is the asterisk symbol.  I don't know where else to ask this question, so I came to SO.