From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dan Nicolaescu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: face colors on 256 colors terminals Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 22:14:08 -0700 Message-ID: <200504070514.j375EBAH009933@scanner2.ics.uci.edu> References: <200504060817.j368HDAH019106@scanner2.ics.uci.edu> <01c53acd$Blat.v2.4$7c0f2080@zahav.net.il> <200504061752.j36HqSAH012245@scanner2.ics.uci.edu> <01c53aea$Blat.v2.4$16ee4740@zahav.net.il> <200504062350.j36NoAAH028834@scanner2.ics.uci.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1112851379 24542 80.91.229.2 (7 Apr 2005 05:22:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 05:22:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 07 07:22:56 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DJPTX-0002Xj-9f for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 07:22:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DJOyl-0003Xc-OK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 00:50:55 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DJOxo-0003Ut-Rk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 00:49:57 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DJOxo-0003U8-Hg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 00:49:56 -0400 Original-Received: from [128.195.1.36] (helo=scanner2.ics.uci.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DJPNO-0002hx-Io; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 01:16:22 -0400 Original-Received: from vino.ics.uci.edu (vino.ics.uci.edu [128.195.11.198]) by scanner2.ics.uci.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j375EBAH009933; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 22:14:11 -0700 (PDT) Original-To: David Kastrup In-Reply-To: (David Kastrup's message of "Thu, 07 Apr 2005 02:22:26 +0200") Original-Lines: 56 X-ICS-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ICS-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted), SpamAssassin (score=-100, required 5, USER_IN_WHITELIST) 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 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:35679 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:35679 David Kastrup writes: > Dan Nicolaescu writes: > > > "Eli Zaretskii" writes: > > > > > > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > > From: Dan Nicolaescu > > > > Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:52:26 -0700 > > > > > > > > Agreed. The problem seems to be that tty-colors.el and color-name-rgb-alist > > > > don't use the same of scaling. > > > > Do you want me to do check if rescaling the values in > > > > color-name-rgb-alist gives good results? > > > > > > Yes, please. > > > > I checked and I could not see any difference in behavior compared to the > > approach in my first patch. > > > > Is this OK? > > I am certain I am missing the context, but is this really related to > the #RRGGBB notation in any manner? It really looks awful to me if > white gets defined as #ff00ff00ff00, so I'd like to be as bothersome > as to be grateful for some factual reassurance that we are indeed > catering here for a real instead of a perceived problem, and that the > fix in that manner is the right thing to do. Well, there patch has 3 parts. Part1: The patch to xterm-register-default-colors changes the way the 8bit R/G/B values are computed for a 256 color xterm to match what the xterm currently does. This part should be correct and non-controversial. Part2: xterm-rgb-convert-to-16bit converts an 8bit color value (say Y) to a 16bit color. As we discussed, the result can either be Y0 or YY. My empirical testing show that there's no visible difference between the two. I have no opinion which is better, if any. Eli seems to think that Y0 is the correct conversion, I don't have a problem going with that. (although "esthetically" YY looks better). Part3: color-name-rgb-alist contains the colors in rgb.txt converted to 16bit. It should use the same conversion as xterm-rgb-convert-to-16bit. So this part is only needed if the conversion performed by xterm-rgb-convert-to-16bit is Y->Y0. (Hmmm, if the Y->Y0 conversion is used then pc-win.el:msdos-color-values needs to be changed in the same way). So when a final decision is made about using the YY or Y0 conversion I can check in the corresponding patch.