On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 04:40:20PM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 12:07:20PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 06:38:25PM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote: > > > On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 12:33:47PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > But the user does not know the algorithm in fvwm. Consider this: > > You have a button button with text and an icon in FvwmButtons. It > > shall visually indicate if the internet connection is up. One > > might want to do this by tinting the whole button. You could > > simply say > > > > Colorset 123 tint blue > > > > Very comfortable to use and very flexible. We might want to > > distinguish between a foreground and background tint. > > > > So we should have fgTint, bgTint (for the bg and the gradients), > PixmapTint (for the non transparent part of the pixmap) and > IconTint for the contextual (mini-)icon. > Pixmaptint and IconTint are really natural with Xrender
Oops, a not finished message. Read my answer to the more recent Mikhael msg on the same subject. 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]
