[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: face at point
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: face at point |
Date: |
19 Nov 2002 17:56:28 +0900 |
Fredrik Staxeng <fstx+u@update.uu.se> writes:
> > As Eli said in an earlier message, there is an informal policy to try
> > to keep the light-background and dark-background variants of a face at
> > least `similar,' which sometimes complicates things.
> ^^^^^^^
>
> This is neither possible or desirable.
Whether it's `desirable' or not, I really don't know -- but it seems
like a non-unreasonable default position.
As for possible, of course it's sometimes not possible, but quite often
it is. When it isn't possible to use _literally_ the same color, I'll
usually try to use something similar in spirit, e.g., if the existing
default is something like dark-blue, which looks good against a
light-background, but not against a dark-background, I'll often try to
use a light-blue for the dark-background case instead.
And lastly, please don't be so condescending. We may have different
tastes than you in some cases, but we aren't idiots.
-Miles
--
Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it
has to be us. -- Jerry Garcia
- Re: face at point, (continued)
- Re: face at point, Miles Bader, 2002/11/18
- Re: face at point, Eli Zaretskii, 2002/11/19
- Message not available
- Re: face at point, Tim Cross, 2002/11/19
- Re: face at point, Eli Zaretskii, 2002/11/19
- Message not available
- Re: face at point, Fredrik Staxeng, 2002/11/19
- Re: face at point, Eli Zaretskii, 2002/11/19
- Re: face at point,
Miles Bader <=
- Message not available
- Re: face at point, Fredrik Staxeng, 2002/11/19
Re: face at point, Fredrik Staxeng, 2002/11/19
Re: face at point, Tim Cross, 2002/11/19