GNU bug report logs -
#36304
27.0.50; request: switch to the superior HTML #RGB convention for colors
Previous Next
Reported by: Pip Cet <pipcet <at> gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 11:24:01 UTC
Severity: wishlist
Found in version 27.0.50
Done: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 8:13 AM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> > While I was there, I've also made it accept upper-case hex digits
> > (previously, #0F0 was accepted but #F00 wasn't), and fixed the ranges
> > so rgb:f/f/f translates to (65535 65535 65535) rather than (255 255
> > 255).
>
> Thanks.
Thanks for the very patient review. Sorry for making so many mistakes.
> > - (cond ((and (>= len 4) ;; X-style "#XXYYZZ" color spec
> > + (cond ((and (>= len 4) ;; "#XXYYZZ" color spec
>
> Is #XXYYZZ no longer considered "X-style"?
I would say no, since X's interpretation of #f00 is a little different
from the HTML/CSS/SVG interpretation.
> > ;; Translate the string "#XXYYZZ" into a list
> > - ;; of numbers (XX YY ZZ). If the primary colors
> > - ;; are specified with less than 4 hex digits,
> > - ;; the used digits represent the most significant
> > - ;; bits of the value (e.g. #XYZ = #X000Y000Z000).
> > + ;; of numbers (XX YY ZZ). If fewer than 4 hex
> > + ;; digits are used, they represent the fraction
> > + ;; of the maximum value (#XYZ = #XXXXYYYYZZZZ).
>
> IMO, this part makes the text confusing:
Thanks, you're absolutely right.
> Finally, this is just part of the patch, isn't it? The xterm.c part
> is not here, and neither are the documentation parts. Did I miss
> something?
Complete updated patch attached.
[0001-Use-the-CSS-convention-for-RGB-colors-bug-36304.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
This bug report was last modified 5 years and 359 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.