From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#7943: white background is color #e5e5e5 in terminal window Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 12:18:54 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20110130185857.ABE7116C28C@purefun.sfo.corp.google.com> <83d3lwrunk.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1299962238 13382 80.91.229.12 (12 Mar 2011 20:37:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 20:37:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 7943@debbugs.gnu.org To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" , "'Warren Harris'" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 12 21:37:14 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PyVYk-0002Nd-Rw for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 21:37:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34104 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PyVYk-0005TS-05 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 15:37:10 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=44902 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PyVYZ-0005RO-Lx for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 15:37:00 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PyVYW-0000cj-IK for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 15:36:59 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:37573) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PyVYW-0000cf-Gl for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 15:36:56 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PyVIB-0003e2-0L; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 15:20:03 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: "Drew Adams" Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 20:20:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 7943 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 7943-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B7943.129996114713935 (code B ref 7943); Sat, 12 Mar 2011 20:20:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 7943) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Mar 2011 20:19:07 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PyVHH-0003ch-6u for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 15:19:07 -0500 Original-Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PyVHF-0003cE-3r for 7943@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 15:19:05 -0500 Original-Received: from rcsinet13.oracle.com (rcsinet13.oracle.com [148.87.113.125]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id p2CKIwvZ008524 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 12 Mar 2011 20:18:59 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt358.oracle.com (acsmt358.oracle.com [141.146.40.158]) by rcsinet13.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id p2CKIvOG018036 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 12 Mar 2011 20:18:57 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt002.oracle.com (abhmt002.oracle.com [141.146.116.11]) by acsmt358.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p2CKIum5013548; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 14:18:56 -0600 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.53.173) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 12:18:56 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <83d3lwrunk.fsf@gnu.org> Thread-Index: Acvg8RCSC3lRj8zTTQaic59rhl/sJQAARU8A X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 X-Source-IP: acsmt358.oracle.com [141.146.40.158] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090207.4D7BD532.0043,ss=1,fgs=0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 15:20:03 -0500 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:44946 Archived-At: > ("white" 7 (229 229 229)) ; gray90 > ("brightwhite" 15 (255 255 255))) ; white > > As you see, what is called "white" in list-colors-display is actually > gray90.... This definition is used to leave FFFFFF for brightwhite Wow. I won't presume to suggest that this is misguided, but I can't help but wonder why. Why wouldn't white be called "white" and gray90 be called "gray90" or "off-white" or some such? Likewise for red and the rest. Why change the standard/conventional/common definition of the color name? Just wondering.