Re: face at point

[Fredrik Staxeng <fstx+u@update.uu.se>]

Miles Bader <miles@lsi.nec.co.jp> writes:

>Fredrik Staxeng <fstx+u@update.uu.se> writes:
>> > As Eli said in an earlier message, there is an informal policy to try
>> > to keep the light-background and dark-background variants of a face at
>> > least `similar,' which sometimes complicates things.
>>         ^^^^^^^
>> 
>> This is neither possible or desirable.
>
>Whether it's `desirable' or not, I really don't know -- but it seems
>like a non-unreasonable default position.

I apologize for that expression. 

But I gave some examples to illustrate what I meant. I think that the
set of colors that work well on white backgrounds and the set of
colors that work well on black backgrounds have an almost empty
intersection. 

Of course, if you by similar mean the nearest ones from the two sets,
there is much less of an argument. The result is readable. 

But I hastily interpreted that as "only change the colors that we absolutely
have to change". 

>As for possible, of course it's sometimes not possible, but quite often
>it is.  When it isn't possible to use _literally_ the same color, I'll
>usually try to use something similar in spirit, e.g., if the existing
>default is something like dark-blue, which looks good against a
>light-background, but not against a dark-background, I'll often try to
>use a light-blue for the dark-background case instead.

That is the way to do it. The important thing is that you consider
the background. Emacs is the only program I know that even try to
do this.

>And lastly, please don't be so condescending.  We may have different
>tastes than you in some cases, but we aren't idiots.

Sorry. 


-- 
Fredrik Stax\"ang | rot13: sfgk@hcqngr.hh.fr