On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 12:33:47PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote: > On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 10:33:32AM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote: > > On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 12:48:28AM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > > On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 09:19:51PM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote: > > > > On 08 May 2002 10:21:35 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > > > But do you have anything against adding fg_shadow color (or fgsh)? > > > > > > No, not at all. I've no problem as long as the colour in the > > > colour set are usable regardless of the context (you could use a > > > shadow colour anywhere where text is drawn). On the other hand, > > > I wouldn't like to have - for example - icon specific colours in > > > the colour set. > > > > > > > So if I well understand you are opposed to colorset options as: > > > > - IconTint colour percent / IconAlpha percent > > > > which whenever a (mini-)icon is implied in the drawn rectangle > > tint this (mini-)icon with "colour" at percent rate "percent" > > (apply the mini-icon with an additional alpha of "percent", > > respectively). > > ... > > But why make a special case if there is a mini icon? If we need > a tint colour, shouldn't it be applicable to any forground, not > just icons? I see no reason why, for example, text shouldn't > benefit from tinting. >
I do not think that tint should be applied to fg, *Gradient and even the transparent part of the background of a pixmap (i.e., bg). At the present time Tint tints the transparent part of the background the cs pixmap for *Pixmap colorset (as TintMask does not) and now I think this is not a good idea. The reason is that I do not see the interset to tint a colour, the user can do that by just changing the color in the Colorset cmd. For Pixmap and mini-icon the situation is totally different. Olivier -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
