Fix potentially confusing documentation

[sachinraja]

I was trying to find how to import only one icon at a time and came across this line:
const icon = require('simple-icons/icons/simpleicons');

This is a bit confusing to read for the first time. Both simple-icons and simpleicons represent this repository and can be easily mistaken for other files, not icons. simpleicons is also plural, so it could be misinterpreted as a folder. I realize that you do not want to be opinionated, but I feel it would be much more clear to change it to an easily distinguishable brand:
const icon = require('simple-icons/icons/ford');

I believe that changing other parts of the documentation could help too, so there will not be any room for doubt.

[mondeja]

I think that we can go with any open source brand. What about using shields.io?

 const icon = require('simple-icons/icons/shields-dot-io');

Maybe including the extension or is too ugly?

 const icon = require('simple-icons/icons/shields-dot-io.js');

[sachinraja]

I think shields.io is a good pick as it also shows the special case of replacing . with dot. I don't think the extension should be used as that isn't how it would normally be imported.

[PeterShaggyNoble]

Given #4936, shields-dot-io may not be the best choice at the moment. I'd suggest using either github or npm instead.

[mondeja]

Given #4936, shields-dot-io may not be the best choice at the moment.

I agree, but are not npm or github still being too meta as the documentation can be read from both sites?

[sachinraja]

I was thinking the same. Perhaps Jekyll or Babel? I think most icons will be fine as they'll clear up the number of times simpleicons is mentioned in the docs.

[ericcornelissen]

@xCloudzx, what do you think about the documentation for CDN usage? We could use a similar style for NodeJS.

I think shields.io is a good pick as it also shows the special case of replacing . with dot. I don't think the extension should be used as that isn't how it would normally be imported.

I think we should figure out a way to properly document how titles are converted into filenames (or slugs as we call them) anyway. I opened #4946 to start the discussion on this 🙂

[sachinraja]

Yeah the CDN docs look good to me. It clearly articulates exactly where to put the icon's name alongside an example.