Eyal Soha <shawarmakarma@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > These colors are the bright variants of the 3-bit colors. OK, so this round the design is to reuse the ANSI mode instead of introducing a new AIX mode that sits next to ANSI, 256 and RGB? For this to work, not just the 90-97 range for bright-ansi orders the colors the same way as 30-37 range (only brighter), but also the differences between corresponding fore- and background colors must also be 10 just like the regular ANSI colors. So perhaps an additional sentence or two deserve to be there, e.g. ... of the 3-bit colors. Instead of 30-37 range for the foreground and 40-47 range for the background, they live in 90-97 and 100-107 range, respectively. or something like that, perhaps? > The basic colors accepted are `normal`, `black`, `red`, `green`, `yellow`, > `blue`, `magenta`, `cyan` and `white`. The first color given is the > -foreground; the second is the background. > +foreground; the second is the background. All the basic colors except > +`normal` have a bright variant that can be speficied by prefixing the > +color with `bright`, like `brightred`. Nicely and readably written. I have to wonder if spelling "bright<color>", i.e. two words smashed together without anything in between words, is in widespread use (in other words, are we following an established practice, or are we inventing our own), or if we need to prepare for synonyms? HTML/CSS folks seem to use words-smashed-without-anything-in-betwen so they should be fine with this design; I no longer recall what X did ;-) Looking good. Thanks.
