Hi Silvan,
> Patches welcome!
My sole intent was to report a bug, leaving it up to you how you handle it.
Thanks for your understanding,
egmont
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Silvan Jegen <s.jegen_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Egmont Koblinger <egmont_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
>> I came across patches for the Solarized color scheme under
>> https://st.suckless.org/patches/solarized/ .
>>
>> I wuold like to point out that the "light" variant, along with its
>> screenshot, is incorrect.
>>
>> According to the Solarized homepage
>> https://ethanschoonover.com/solarized/ , the section "The Values",
>> each of the 0-15 indices have a corresponding fixed RGB value. There's
>> not a single word about reversing the order of base03..base3.
>>
>> Underneath, the section "Usage & Development" also illustrates that
>> the RGB definition of base03 and friends do not change. It is the
>> responsibility of applications to emit reversed values if that's what
>> makes sense for them, according to whether they wish to use the dark
>> or light variant. (And above, under Features -> Precision & Symmetry
>> this is demonstrated as a sass (scss) snippet, but that's unrelated to
>> terminal emulation and the concept of indices 0-15, it corresponds to
>> what let's say "vim" would probably also do when implementing a dark
>> solarized and a light solarized pair of skins.)
>>
>> In the two variants, the palette of 16 should be identical. It is only
>> defaultfg and defaultbg that should differ.
>
> Patches welcome!
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Silvan
>
Received on Fri Sep 07 2018 - 16:25:58 CEST