From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: face colors on 256 colors terminals Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 02:22:26 +0200 Message-ID: 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 1112833363 14479 80.91.229.2 (7 Apr 2005 00:22:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 00:22:43 +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 02:22:41 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DJKmu-0007iD-Cv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 02:22:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DJKM6-0000zF-I9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 19:54:42 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DJKLk-0000xo-I5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 19:54:21 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DJKLk-0000xQ-Co for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 19:54:20 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DJKnU-0003tK-J0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:23:00 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lola.goethe.zz) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DJKmi-0007rs-AC; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:22:13 -0400 Original-To: Dan Nicolaescu In-Reply-To: <200504062350.j36NoAAH028834@scanner2.ics.uci.edu> (Dan Nicolaescu's message of "Wed, 06 Apr 2005 16:50:07 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) 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:35666 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:35666 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. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum