From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?Mattias_Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master 68ae6fa: Improved light/dark colour predicate (bug#41544) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2020 12:55:44 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20200610181238.9796.44750@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20200610181239.947C4204DF@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <93F81C41-E774-4C02-9E9D-5B2CD1F66445@acm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="105955"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Stefan Monnier , Emacs developers To: Yuri Khan Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Jun 13 12:56:30 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jk3pu-000RT6-Jn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 13 Jun 2020 12:56:30 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56856 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jk3pt-0000q0-FO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 13 Jun 2020 06:56:29 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44052) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jk3pM-0000Af-Qj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Jun 2020 06:55:56 -0400 Original-Received: from mail1442c50.megamailservers.eu ([91.136.14.42]:33336 helo=mail264c50.megamailservers.eu) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jk3pJ-0000zH-0y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Jun 2020 06:55:56 -0400 X-Authenticated-User: mattiase@bredband.net DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=megamailservers.eu; s=maildub; t=1592045748; bh=JRpYwh9hk6P/KPED3AIWmRNIzRV9L4bmSi/XHXEo9Vg=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=QczmmNascYriB16rdIYP9PE7gXSWoV5CDfedNMbTFqndlNayBh4S50cXTyeVMN7u4 3SQ6yCfSLCjt3eTvK4dzGT72Ox2ps9PUzPbul50WoOMwbXBIlx34AtDtZvo/h9Seq1 Mi4uFmYwEp3MnPaahcO+4lyVQLjJxEnZ1i5pCoD0= Feedback-ID: mattiase@acm.or Original-Received: from [192.168.0.4] (c188-150-171-71.bredband.comhem.se [188.150.171.71]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail264c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id 05DAtjTL028407; Sat, 13 Jun 2020 10:55:46 +0000 In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14) X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A782F28.5EE4B058.001B, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0 X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown X-CTCH-Score: 0.000 X-CTCH-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000 X-CSC: 0 X-CHA: v=2.3 cv=PPNxBsiC c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=SF+I6pRkHZhrawxbOkkvaA==:117 a=SF+I6pRkHZhrawxbOkkvaA==:17 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=M51BFTxLslgA:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=IWG-QM4Vg1VuXY_icyAA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 Received-SPF: softfail client-ip=91.136.14.42; envelope-from=mattiase@acm.org; helo=mail264c50.megamailservers.eu X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/06/13 06:55:49 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x (no timestamps) [generic] X-Spam_score_int: -11 X-Spam_score: -1.2 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:252157 Archived-At: 12 juni 2020 kl. 20.36 skrev Yuri Khan : > Despite science calling for .18, I find that my subjective optimal > cutoff is somewhere between .25 and .31, even if I change the formulae > to more accurately model the piecewise gamma correction of sRGB: Thanks for the report, and yes, I did test with the exact sRGB gamma = curve and noticed almost no significant differences. The only differences in the standard colour table are: #999999 (grey60), = #ee7600 (darkorange2), #ee7621 (chocolate2) and #bc8f8f (rosybrown), all = categorised as 'light' with power 2.2 and 'dark' with the exact sRGB = gamma function, assuming a cutoff of 0.325. It's really hard to say = which one is right.