[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (type graphic)
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: (type graphic) |
Date: |
Fri, 27 Oct 2000 08:10:02 +0200 |
> From: Miles Bader <address@hidden>
> Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 08:35:10 +0900 (JST)
> >
> > This is redundant, I think: unsupported attributes are simply ignored,
> > so we cannot gain too much here. Note that Emacs deffaces almost
> > always use color, either together or instead of the other attributes,
> > so most faces will have some emphasis anyhow.
>
> Just depending on unsupported attributes being ignored leads to ugly
> faces, which are over-specified `so they work on all terminals'.
> I.e., when someone can't be sure that just underline works, they specify
> bold-underline-red. Visible? Yes. Hideous? Yes.
>
> I'm not suggesting doing the above for 21.1, but something similar
> *would* be useful, and almost trivial to implement.
Yes, but is it actually that much better than the 'graphic thing that
you already committed?
- (type graphic), Eli Zaretskii, 2000/10/25
- Re: (type graphic), Gerd Moellmann, 2000/10/26
- Re: (type graphic), Andrew Innes, 2000/10/26
- Re: (type graphic), Eli Zaretskii, 2000/10/26
- Re: (type graphic), Jason Rumney, 2000/10/26
- Re: (type graphic), Eli Zaretskii, 2000/10/26
- Re: (type graphic), Jason Rumney, 2000/10/26
Re: (type graphic), Jason Rumney, 2000/10/25