[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?


> Subjectively, the MH-E colors should map to a pleasing set.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]