From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eli Zaretskii" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: Re: Bug#127943: Bug in htmlize.el Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:27:54 +0200 Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <7704-Sun21Sep2003182753+0300-eliz@elta.co.il> References: <87r8njey31.fsf@cachemir.echo-net.net> <1197.1063152238@mixed> <83k784rl0h.wl%algernon@bonehunter.rulez.org> <83ad8zryyx.wl%algernon@midgard.debian.net> <9003-Sun21Sep2003143629+0300-eliz@elta.co.il> <9787-Sun21Sep2003163914+0300-eliz@elta.co.il> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1064158325 7925 80.91.224.253 (21 Sep 2003 15:32:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 15:32:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: algernon@midgard.debian.net, bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, psg@debian.org, 127943@bugs.debian.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Sep 21 17:32:03 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1A16Bu-0003FL-00 for ; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 17:32:02 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1A16Bd-0005Di-Sy for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 11:31:45 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.22) id 1A16Ba-00059Z-V9 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 11:31:42 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.22) id 1A16BZ-00059P-JV for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 11:31:42 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.114.186.22] (helo=gollum.inter.net.il) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1A16BZ-00059L-3D for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 11:31:41 -0400 Original-Received: from zaretski (pns03-196-39.inter.net.il [80.230.196.39]) by gollum.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with ESMTP id BLX79436; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:31:17 +0300 (IDT) Original-To: hniksic@xemacs.org X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9 In-reply-to: <9787-Sun21Sep2003163914+0300-eliz@elta.co.il> X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:5828 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.bugs:5828 > Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 16:39:15 +0200 > From: "Eli Zaretskii" > > > > I'm curious -- how is "no color" different than "default (unspecified) > > color"? Is the distinction ever useful? After all, every terminal > > has some form of color, even when you can't change it! :-) > > That's true in theory; but in practice, the Emacs display code cannot > be easily told that ``no-color'' and ``only 2 colors'' is the same. I > don't remember the details, sorry: it was a long time ago that I > hacked the color support for text terminals. But the fact that we > have a display-color-p predicate is an evidence that these two > situations are not regarded by Emacs as the same. Actually, this is slightly inaccurate: these are the reasons why originally the default colors used the symbol `unspecified'. As Richard pointed out, `unspecified-fg' and `unspecified-bg' were invented to handle inverted colors (a.k.a. reverse video) when the colors are unknown. This happens when you invoke Emacs with the command "emacs -nw -rv". Neither nil nor `unspecified' can handle this situation well.