From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#28338: 25.2; Default fonts for Info Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 10:26:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <0a5cea17-42be-4d4f-a4f7-798bfa51e290@default> References: <<>> <<<837exfyej8.fsf@gnu.org>>> <> <<834lsjyasv.fsf@gnu.org>> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1504459646 17674 195.159.176.226 (3 Sep 2017 17:27:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 17:27:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 28338@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Sep 03 19:27:11 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1doYfv-0003uz-4a for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 03 Sep 2017 19:27:11 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34893 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1doYg2-0002K5-3u for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 03 Sep 2017 13:27:18 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52304) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1doYfr-0002H1-3P for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Sep 2017 13:27:11 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1doYfm-0006pm-8W for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Sep 2017 13:27:07 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:38032) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1doYfm-0006pT-5E for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Sep 2017 13:27:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1doYfl-0002Tk-TV for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Sep 2017 13:27:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Drew Adams Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2017 17:27:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 28338 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 28338-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B28338.15044596139513 (code B ref 28338); Sun, 03 Sep 2017 17:27:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 28338) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Sep 2017 17:26:53 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46713 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1doYfd-0002TN-Kl for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Sep 2017 13:26:53 -0400 Original-Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:51147) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1doYfb-0002TA-7W for 28338@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Sep 2017 13:26:51 -0400 Original-Received: from userv0021.oracle.com (userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id v83HQhLM013824 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 3 Sep 2017 17:26:44 GMT Original-Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by userv0021.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v83HQhUp006948 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 3 Sep 2017 17:26:43 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0005.oracle.com (abhmp0005.oracle.com [141.146.116.11]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v83HQg6w011476; Sun, 3 Sep 2017 17:26:42 GMT In-Reply-To: <<834lsjyasv.fsf@gnu.org>> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 12.0.6774.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:136550 Archived-At: > > (I saw no discussion of it.) >=20 > That doesn't mean there were none. See, for example, bug#18077, > bug#19889, bug#22207, and bug#24597. emacs-devel is a better place for proposals to change default behavior and discussions thereof. > > I suggest that Courier New should be the default font for > > that face (as well as be the general default). >=20 > That would make it indistinguishable from the default face, so it's a > non-starter. 1. No, it would not, if you give it a different color instead of a different font. You seem stubborn about hearing this. Changing the font is not the only way to make text stand out. 2. In the past Emacs has had cases where a face intentionally had exactly the same default appearance as the default face - nothing distinguishable at all. Clearly that (misguided) choice was not a "non-starter" then. (In fact, I was among those who pointed out more than once that such a default face appearance was not a good idea. But for quite a while suggestions to make such faces look different by default were (ironically), themselves, "non-starters".) My suggestion is _not_ to use exactly the same face as the default face - I've made that quite clear. My suggestion is to not use a different font. Using a different color (whatever color) is a reasonable alternative. In the past, Emacs (unwisely) used bold, but with the same font, by default, here and there. We pointed out that bold does not render well for some platforms, in particular, for MS Windows (with the default font). Using bold was one approach (bad). Using a different font is another approach (bad - this bug). Using a different color is another approach (pretty good, IMHO). You propose a color. Almost any color would do, as long as it is sufficiently different from the background color. Users should (preferably) be able to notice it (i.e., not the default foreground color, which you apparently agree with), so that they can tell that it is something they can customize it.