https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6760
Kevin A. McGrail <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #2 from Kevin A. McGrail <[email protected]> 2012-03-08 22:04:05 UTC --- Sorry for the delay on reviewing this. You appear to have unraveled a bit of a can of worms. OK, so let's deal with the issues one at a time. First: Should #789 be 070809 or 778899? Well, it should be 778899 and http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2899197/does-style-color-fff-render-as-f0f0f0-or-ffffff has a good answer verifying this. However, it should only be 778899 for CSS implementations. This means that name_to_rgb is fundamentally flawed as are several tests in t/html_colors.t >From reading, these flaws are the basis on JGC's research from 2004 into IE parsing bugs. Those flaws are really no longer relevant. I am not sure if want to dig into the CSS vs normal HTML. Second: I agree. The check for low contrast should include near and identical colors. I'll attach some patches and research in a little while. Still running tests. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
