Re: Bug#127943: Bug in htmlize.el

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@xemacs.org>
> Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 14:19:57 +0200
> 
> So far I haven't seen face-foreground report "unspecified-*".  I think
> I'll just handle it like I do nil -- default to something a bit more
> sensible than throwing an error at the user.

I think you should not generate any HTML tags for the color of the
unspecified colors: if the result will be displayed on the text
terminal, and if htmlize doesn't give any explicit commands, the
colors you will get are the default colors.  Emacs automatically
arranges for that.

> >> Why don't these functions return nil instead?
> >
> > Because nil means no color at all.
> 
> I'm curious -- how is "no color" different than "default (unspecified)
> color"?  Is the distinction ever useful?  After all, every terminal
> has some form of color, even when you can't change it!  :-)

That's true in theory; but in practice, the Emacs display code cannot
be easily told that ``no-color'' and ``only 2 colors'' is the same.  I
don't remember the details, sorry: it was a long time ago that I
hacked the color support for text terminals.  But the fact that we
have a display-color-p predicate is an evidence that these two
situations are not regarded by Emacs as the same.