[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why min-colors 88?
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Why min-colors 88? |
Date: |
Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:55:51 +0200 |
> From: Bill Wohler <address@hidden>
> Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 22:18:38 -0800
> Cc: address@hidden
>
> > Because there's an 88-color xterm whose color set is rich enough to
> > support all the colors we use in Emacs' faces.
>
> Or in other words, Emacs' has 88 faces?
No, it has much less. But we tried all the colors in tty-colors.el,
and the 88-color xterm distinguishes them enough for us to decide that
88 colors are like 256 for all practical purposes.
In other words, 88-color xterm will support any faces that could be
defined in the future as well as the X version of Emacs.
> > . find out what colors, in terms of RGB values, are defined on that
> > device
> > . map the colors used by Emacs (e.g. in color-name-rgb-alist) into
> > those 64 colors, using tty-color-translate
> > . see how many Emacs colors map to the same color on the 64-color
> > deives, and
> > . draw the conclusions.
>
> Objectively, if the colors that we use do not map to the same color,
> we should be OK, right?
Yes.
> Subjectively, the MH-E colors should map to a pleasing set.
Yes.
- Why min-colors 88?, Bill Wohler, 2006/02/03
- Re: Why min-colors 88?, Eli Zaretskii, 2006/02/04
- Re: Why min-colors 88?, Bill Wohler, 2006/02/05
- Re: Why min-colors 88?, Stefan Monnier, 2006/02/05
- Re: Why min-colors 88?, Bill Wohler, 2006/02/05
- Re: Why min-colors 88?, Dan Nicolaescu, 2006/02/05
- Re: Why min-colors 88?, Bill Wohler, 2006/02/05
- Re: Why min-colors 88?, Miles Bader, 2006/02/05
- Re: Why min-colors 88?, Stefan Monnier, 2006/02/05
- Re: Why min-colors 88?,
Eli Zaretskii <=