On Sunday, 8 June 2025 02:26:35 BST G. Branden Robinson wrote: > > and with very little idea of what you are doing. > > I see no evidence that Deri doesn't grasp the nature of what he's > proposing.
I think there has been a misunderstanding of the work I did on investigating the colour palettes used by different output drivers. The work started because Branden suggested:- > Would it make sense to offer two macro files, "color-html.tmac" and > "color-x11.tmac"? I reckon the "html" and "xhtml" devices would load > the former by default and the X11 devices the latter by default. > > Which should be the default for the other devices? > > Of course no matter which macro file is loaded by default, a document > can select a different one by invoking the `mso` request on the > preferred one. [lists.gnu.org not responding so I can't add a link > but the post was on 06/06/25 at 05:24:21 (BST)] Currently, grotty, grohtml, grodvi, grops and gropdf all have a set of colour names as defaults in their respective tmac files. Naming colours is useful in discussing a particular palette to use in a document, and there is an advantage if the named colours produce identical RGB colours across different output devices. There are two main naming schemes X11 (came to fruition in the late 80s and 90s) and HTML (first working draft of CSS 3 Colour Module in 2001). [1] Both schemes used the same names and in all but 4 cases (green, gray, maroon, purple) the RGB shade is the same. X11 also added extra names as numbered variations of (some of) the base colours, which was not duplicated in HTML. [2] The default names for gropdvi, grops and gropdf, all follow the X11 names and colours (as they were in the 90s, extra colours have been added since then which have not been included by groff), and now it would make sense if grotty used the same colour names and values as well, since it now supports the same colour range. The difficult one to understand is grohtml. It has all the X11 names but almost all the values don't match either X11 or HTML. In effect it is groff's own colour scheme! The file color-html.tmac (which was subsequently integrated into html.tmac) was added to groff in October 2001, at that time the colours were just a W3C recommendation [3], so browsers may have been doing their own thing. Decisions to make:- A) Is it a good idea to separate the colour names away from the individual device tmacs into two files "colors-x11.tmac" and "colors-html.tmac", and replace with appropriate .mso calls. B) Should the extra colours which have been added to X11 over the years be added to colors-x11.tmac? C) Should colors-html.tmac be "fixed" so that it now follows the W3C standard rigidly? Cheers Deri [1] https://docs.aspose.com/html/net/tutorial/html-color-names/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X11_color_names#Numbered_variants [3] https://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-css3-color-20010305#x11-color
