RE: Color themes

[Drew Adams]

> Most faces inherit from the basic faces (default, bold, 
> italic, region, etc.) plus the font-lock faces.
> Or at least they should.

Huh? Where does it say that? Since when?

What possible reason could there be for saying that it's OK to inherit from
basic face `escape-glyph' (for example) but not OK to define your own face
without inheriting from any "basic face" or a font-lock face. What's so special
about the "basic faces" and font-lock faces? When you defined face
`escape-glyph', what made you decide it was a "basic face"?

I find nothing anywhere in the Emacs or Elisp manual that suggests that
inheriting is good and not inheriting is bad, let alone that one should inherit
(ultimately) from one of the "basic faces" or a font-lock face.

And what makes a face a "basic face", anyway? 

I see nothing in the doc that even defines any notion of "basic face". There is
no mention of it in the Emacs manual. The only use of that term in the Elisp
manual is in the example defface for face `region' (only in its doc string and
:group).

There is a customize group named `basic-faces' (with 35 faces in it), but we all
know how little meaning to ascribe to customize groups or their names.

And if someone uses :group 'basic-faces in a defface, then presumably that
creates a new basic face? Belonging to :group `basic-faces' certainly can't be
the real meaning of the concept "basic face".

So do we now have a new guideline - "Thou shalt inherit from a basic face" -
that has no meaning? Next thing you know, someone will add that commandment to
the doc, having picked it up from your post. Another rule for the Emacs
Catechism, with no reasons given...