From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: CSS contrast (#30295) (was Re: Heads-up: Emacs 26.1 RC1) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:40:03 +0200 Message-ID: <83zi31k3fg.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83muz2lfo9.fsf@gnu.org> <837eq5lvyx.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1521636517 20195 195.159.176.226 (21 Mar 2018 12:48:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 12:48:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: johnw@gnu.org, tom@tromey.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Richard Copley Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 21 13:48:33 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1eydAP-00059D-1G for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 13:48:33 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54768 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eydCS-0000at-60 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:50:40 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60838) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eyd23-00018H-Pu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:39:56 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eyd22-0003Y2-Sp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:39:55 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:49725) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eyd1x-0003U8-Um; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:39:50 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2741 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1eyd1x-0008BW-Fy; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:39:49 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Richard Copley on Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:59:37 +0000) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:223884 Archived-At: > From: Richard Copley > Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:59:37 +0000 > Cc: John Wiegley , Tom Tromey , > Emacs Development > > Thanks, but I think this is a step backward, as it more or less goes > back to the code before the discussion of bug#25525. > > Patch 2 does, yes. It's good to step backwards, because (the effect of) the original code was OK, whereas > the current code leads to unreadable text. The "unreadable" part seems to be in the eyes of the beholder. As I said, it's readable for me. Color perception differs somewhat between people, so I'm not surprised. > How about making the threshold a customizable value instead, with the > current hard-coded value the default? That'd be compatible, and > should allow you to get the contrast of your liking. > > It sounds like you want to insist that white-on-pale-green is somehow better than black-on-pale-green, or that > there's some other consideration that's more important. That's just one example. I'm sure there are examples with other color pairs that point to the opposite direction. More generally, I want to insist on making only safe changes at this late stage in the pretest. The current code is in Emacs for more than a year, so suddenly discarding behavior that was tested since then and going to a behavior that was not tested at all doesn't make sense. Therefore, I proposed a change that will allow people who don't like this behavior to adapt it to their color perception, without changing the tested default. Such a change looks safe enough to me to install it on the release branch, even though we are long past the time for any significant changes that don't fix grave bugs. By contrast, your suggestion changes user-visible behavior in incompatible ways, which is definitely not safe at this time.