From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eli Zaretskii" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Some xterm-256color face colors too bright? Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:52:28 +0200 Message-ID: <01c50897$Blat.v2.4$b4e02700@zahav.net.il> References: <01c507ca$Blat.v2.4$c3c54200@zahav.net.il> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1107289101 10082 80.91.229.2 (1 Feb 2005 20:18:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 20:18:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 01 21:18:21 2005 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Cw4TV-0001ok-V1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:18:14 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Cw4gU-0000Pk-NC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2005 15:31:38 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Cw4aF-0005uZ-8t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2005 15:25:12 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Cw4a1-0005oR-M8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2005 15:25:02 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Cw4a1-0005kM-8f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2005 15:24:57 -0500 Original-Received: from [192.114.186.66] (helo=romy.inter.net.il) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Cw4Do-0002yO-N1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2005 15:02:00 -0500 Original-Received: from zaretski ([80.230.155.59]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.6-GR) with ESMTP id ALD77264 (AUTH halo1); Tue, 1 Feb 2005 21:56:22 +0200 (IST) Original-To: stktrc X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 2.4 In-reply-to: (message from stktrc on Tue, 01 Feb 2005 13:48:49 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org X-MailScanner-To: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:32718 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:32718 > From: stktrc > Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 13:48:49 +0200 > > Comparing terminal RosyBrown and windowed RosyBrown as background > colors gives that terminal RosyBrown is slightly brighter, but the > difference is not huge. > [...] > I want to stress that the brightness of the colors in the terminal are > not just an aesthetical annoyance or anything like that: it borders on > making the text unreadable. In windowed Emacs, everything is fine. ??? These two paragraphs seem to contradict one another: the first one says that the difference between the windowed and non-windowed session is small (which is expected, as the former one has more colors than 256), while the latter says that the difference is large (``borders on unreadable'' vs ``everything is fine''). I wonder how can this happen. Can you shed some light on this?