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.je...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi > > On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Egmont Koblinger <egm...@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 >