23.0.60; Different heights for customize faces

23.0.60; Different heights for customize faces

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

The heights for custom-variable-tag-face and custom-face-tag differs.


In GNU Emacs 23.0.60.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600)
  of 2008-05-07

Re: 23.0.60; Different heights for customize faces

[Juri Linkov]

> The heights for custom-variable-tag-face and custom-face-tag differs.

Sorry, I see no bug.

-- 
Juri Linkov
http://www.jurta.org/emacs/

Re: 23.0.60; Different heights for customize faces

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Juri Linkov wrote:
>> The heights for custom-variable-tag-face and custom-face-tag differs.
> 
> Sorry, I see no bug.

Are those too faces the same height? Any one else seeing different heights?

Re: 23.0.60; Different heights for customize faces

[Juri Linkov]

> Juri Linkov wrote:
>>> The heights for custom-variable-tag-face and custom-face-tag differs.
>>
>> Sorry, I see no bug.
>
> Are those too faces the same height? Any one else seeing different heights?

If you what to say that different heights look ugly then I argee.
Also using the blue color for custom-variable-tag-face makes option names
similar to links.  Maybe we should use the same colors that font-lock
defines for font-lock-constant-face and font-lock-variable-name and just
make them bold?

-- 
Juri Linkov
http://www.jurta.org/emacs/

Re: 23.0.60; Different heights for customize faces

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Juri Linkov wrote:
>> Juri Linkov wrote:
>>>> The heights for custom-variable-tag-face and custom-face-tag differs.
>>> Sorry, I see no bug.
>> Are those too faces the same height? Any one else seeing different heights?
> 
> If you what to say that different heights look ugly then I argee.

Eh, yes. I could perhaps have been clear, but I just could not imagine 
that the different heights were by intent.

> Also using the blue color for custom-variable-tag-face makes option names
> similar to links.  Maybe we should use the same colors that font-lock
> defines for font-lock-constant-face and font-lock-variable-name and just
> make them bold?

I think that would be worth to try.

Re: 23.0.60; Different heights for customize faces

[Juri Linkov]

>>>>> The heights for custom-variable-tag-face and custom-face-tag differs.
>>>> Sorry, I see no bug.
>>> Are those too faces the same height? Any one else seeing different heights?
>>
>> If you what to say that different heights look ugly then I argee.
>
> Eh, yes. I could perhaps have been clear, but I just could not imagine
> that the different heights were by intent.

It is currently defined as 1.2 height:

(defface custom-face-tag
  `((t (:weight bold :height 1.2 :inherit variable-pitch)))
  "Face used for face tags."
  :group 'custom-faces)

>> Also using the blue color for custom-variable-tag-face makes option names
>> similar to links.  Maybe we should use the same colors that font-lock
>> defines for font-lock-constant-face and font-lock-variable-name and just
>> make them bold?
>
> I think that would be worth to try.

Could you propose a better color?

Meanwhile, I like to fix the original problem you reported
by the following patch.  It changes the appearance of
custom-face-tag to be the same as custom-variable-tag.
These option types can be still distinguished in the
Customization buffer because faces have the explicit
text "face:" appended after the face name.

Index: lisp/cus-edit.el
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/emacs/emacs/lisp/cus-edit.el,v
retrieving revision 1.346
diff -u -r1.346 cus-edit.el
--- lisp/cus-edit.el	6 May 2008 07:57:28 -0000	1.346
+++ lisp/cus-edit.el	11 May 2008 20:10:11 -0000
@@ -3218,7 +3218,7 @@
 ;;; The `custom-face' Widget.
 
 (defface custom-face-tag
-  `((t (:weight bold :height 1.2 :inherit variable-pitch)))
+  `((t :inherit custom-variable-tag))
   "Face used for face tags."
   :group 'custom-faces)
 ;; backward-compatibility alias

-- 
Juri Linkov
http://www.jurta.org/emacs/

Re: 23.0.60; Different heights for customize faces

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Juri Linkov wrote:
>>> Also using the blue color for custom-variable-tag-face makes option names
>>> similar to links.  Maybe we should use the same colors that font-lock
>>> defines for font-lock-constant-face and font-lock-variable-name and just
>>> make them bold?
>> I think that would be worth to try.
> 
> Could you propose a better color?

I think your proposal to reuse the font-lock colors is good. 
`font-lock-variable-name' seems appropriate to inherit in 
`custom-variable-tag-face' - at least as a mnemonic (and that is 
probably good for a quick overview).

Not sure about what `custom-face-tag' could inherit from, but 
font-lock-constant-face is not bad IMO.

> Meanwhile, I like to fix the original problem you reported
> by the following patch.  It changes the appearance of

Thanks.

Re: 23.0.60; Different heights for customize faces

[Juri Linkov]

>>>> Also using the blue color for custom-variable-tag-face makes option names
>>>> similar to links.  Maybe we should use the same colors that font-lock
>>>> defines for font-lock-constant-face and font-lock-variable-name and just
>>>> make them bold?
>>> I think that would be worth to try.
>>
>> Could you propose a better color?
>
> I think your proposal to reuse the font-lock colors is
> good. `font-lock-variable-name' seems appropriate to inherit in
> custom-variable-tag-face' - at least as a mnemonic (and that is probably
> good for a quick overview).
>
> Not sure about what `custom-face-tag' could inherit from, but
> font-lock-constant-face is not bad IMO.

One thing that it would be more logical, but another thing
how it would really look in Customize.  Does this look good?

-- 
Juri Linkov
http://www.jurta.org/emacs/

Re: 23.0.60; Different heights for customize faces

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Juri Linkov wrote:
>>>>> Also using the blue color for custom-variable-tag-face makes option names
>>>>> similar to links.  Maybe we should use the same colors that font-lock
>>>>> defines for font-lock-constant-face and font-lock-variable-name and just
>>>>> make them bold?
>>>> I think that would be worth to try.
>>> Could you propose a better color?
>> I think your proposal to reuse the font-lock colors is
>> good. `font-lock-variable-name' seems appropriate to inherit in
>> custom-variable-tag-face' - at least as a mnemonic (and that is probably
>> good for a quick overview).
>>
>> Not sure about what `custom-face-tag' could inherit from, but
>> font-lock-constant-face is not bad IMO.
> 
> One thing that it would be more logical, but another thing
> how it would really look in Customize.  Does this look good?

I avoided that problem ...

If the colors is a problem from that point of view then maybe there 
could be a marker before the text with a color reflection the option 
type. The name of the object could be just black then.

bug#626: 23.0.60; Different heights for customize faces

[Juri Linkov]

> Meanwhile, I like to fix the original problem you reported
> by the following patch.  It changes the appearance of
> custom-face-tag to be the same as custom-variable-tag.
> These option types can be still distinguished in the
> Customization buffer because faces have the explicit
> text "face:" appended after the face name.

Fixed.

-- 
Juri Linkov
http://www.jurta.org/emacs/

bug#627: 23.0.60; Different heights for customize faces

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Thanks.

Juri Linkov wrote:
>> Meanwhile, I like to fix the original problem you reported
>> by the following patch.  It changes the appearance of
>> custom-face-tag to be the same as custom-variable-tag.
>> These option types can be still distinguished in the
>> Customization buffer because faces have the explicit
>> text "face:" appended after the face name.
> 
> Fixed.
>